Member Info for amerloque

Kooba, Maxi19:

Sound comments by both of you. I can relate also to negative comments. However, multiple bidders could account for the delays. It would be unwise to accept early bids in this case or if expecting substantial orders. I am encouraged by management and even Picket retaining a large number of shares. If Picket has created valuable IP, he would probably want to be benefit from a Nanoco spinoff. He appears intent on profiting from Nanoco's future.

Posters keep referring to Hansol as if it is an independent company. Unless I have missed something, Hansol is still a Samsung company.

Thanks, Ecclescake. I had not kept up the lawsuit details. The info regarding LG replying to Nanoco's lawsuit tomorrow is intriguing. While LG might not use QD's now, Nanoco must be certain that they infringed in the past. If so, they might be obliged to enter into negotiations. Monday will prove interesting.

Ecclescake:

Thanks for the patent clarification.

I expect that Nanoco has already identified likely takeover companies and are flexible depending on the buyer's offer. If the offer is low, could they reorganize the remaining company with its secret IP, thus giving current shareholders greater opportunity to profit in the future? They could also make a tender offer to take Nanoco with its IP private. I imagine Picket, will join the new company in some fashion and still have significant ownership. What could they legally do without creating a shareholder fight? Could they combine the tender offer with the sale of Nanoco operations in order to gain shareholder approval?

SmithyB:

I thank you for your contribution. Enlightening as usual.

DDubya:

You have been around for a long time and have earned my respect. You also possess a lot of knowledge. We have every reason to be negative, but I strongly suspect things will improve. I once took over the development and implementation of a huge project, S.W.I.F.T., which banking leaders in Europe advised me to avoid. The instigators told me within the first week that the base language had been abandoned. It's Store-and-Forward design had a fatal flaw which would prevent us from achieving more than 1 percent of the committed performance. I discovered years later that Stanford Research Institute had recommended that major problems could not be fixed. In short, I was set up! I endured three long, hard years, personal insults and many sleepless nights to turn it into a remarkable success.

I can relate to BT's plight and admire him for staying the course when he could have left at any time. I, on the other hand, had no choice. I would have been blamed for a historical computer failure.

Smithy:

Sadly typical of many posts. Instead of asking me to do the research, you could have relayed your research. I did not investigate British patents because "A British patent is not automatically recognized or enforceable in the US; patents are territorial, meaning a UK patent only grants protection within the UK and provides no rights in other countries like the US. To gain patent protection in the United States, you must file a separate patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or pursue protection through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)".

Please do so if you deem it important. I don't, since it would be absurd not to patent an invention in some of the world's biggest markets.

Note also that I highlighted that the lawsuit only applied to "Display" (not Sensors). I am not a lawyer, but any sale to Samsung involving a settlement in this lawsuit might apply only to the former.

Sadly typical of many posts. Instead of asking me to do the research, you could have relayed your research. I did not investigate British patents because:

AI Overview

No, a British patent is not automatically recognized or enforceable in the US; patents are territorial, meaning a UK patent only grants protection within the UK and provides no rights in other countries like the US. To gain patent protection in the United States, you must file a separate patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or pursue protection through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Please save me the effort and do so. I could have investigated patents throughout every country in the world, but did not. I highlighted that Nanoco's lawsuit addressed "Display" and not Sensors. Therefore, any sale to Samsung might apply only to the former.

An insightful person reading my post might recognize my

Some time ago, I finally gave up and sold 100K shares, but kept 127K+ shares. Today, I placed a conservative order for 30K shares.

Thanks, Bachatanut. I agree that many posts are useless, but must give credit to recent posters whose posts helped me piece together an explanation for cessation of patent applications and why it is selling the operating company. Nanoco research has always been sound. We know that QD's are at the heart of many new technologies, that Nanoco is expanding their market opportunities and that their management understands business, sales and IP protection needs.

It is unlikely that current shareholders will see the multi-bagger gains we initially anticipated, but there is strong probability of at least doubling investment in the near future. There will be multiple offers. The eventual purchaser will benefit enormously, as will current employees.

(continued)

Since the lawsuit only applied to QD’s in Display Devices, it is possible that the Samsung patent agreement in perpetuity does not apply to anything beyond displays. Still, IP protection demanded the Patent cessation, which is striking and certainly does not mean that Nanoco has stopped inventing. Why else would they have kept their top research scientists? The new strategy of selling the operational company would hopefully serve to achieve this goal. Nigel Picket, who is retiring from Nanoco, could even play a key role in the new company.

If I am correct, Nanoco possesses an enticing purchase opportunity--new patentable inventions and markets and slam-dunk lawsuits. We can expect significant benefit for existing shareholders and Nanoco employees.

Nanoco has not filed a patent since May 2021. It is blatantly illogical that a leading quantum dot company possessing more than 550 legitimate patents grants has ceased inventing for five or six years while retaining its top scientists. I submit the following hypothesis—one that explains why Nanoco sold its IP to protect its shareholders. M. Edelman would bear responsibility, leaving replacing CEO, Turner, with no choice. We owe BT and staff thanks for saving the company and eventually placing Nanoco in a far stronger position than we can imagine.

Edelman was a disgrace as a CEO. Seeming incapable of managing his personal life (e.g., repeatedly selling promising Nanoco shares to pay living expenses), he held little understanding or respect for negotiation and sales skills. He and his incompetent sales staff (e.g., hired sales executives based on industry contacts rather than sales and negotiation ability) and repeatedly entered joint venture agreements in which solely the partners benefited. Although I cannot prove so, I am certain that, he gave IP to Samsung (wittingly or not). This would prove Nanoco’s undoing just when they seemed certain of winning a multi-billion British Pound lawsuit. With this wild card in its hand, Samsung never needed to settle with Nanoco. Samsung had predetermined the outcome and could prove Nanoco intentional or unintentional collaboration. Nanoco would lose, shareholders would sue, and Nanoco would no longer exist. Samsung agreed to buy the IP at a low price to avoid bad publicity threatened by BT.

While the patent dispute between Nanoco and Samsung began in 2019, Nanoco did not file until February due to the need to prove patent legitimacy and try to negotiate an out-of-court settlement. In February 2020 following failed negotiations, Nanoco filed a suit against Samsung alleging that Samsung infringed on Nanoco's patents for quantum dot technology USED IN DISPLAY DEVICES.

It is likely that Samsung offered to buy Nanoco IP during early negotiations. It is also possible that Edelman, who seemed vulnerable to personal financial issues, collaborated with Samsung (I infuriated Nanoco bloggers when I documented this fear as early as 2015). If Samsung had made such an offer, Nanoco’s lawyers would have recommended that they no longer use patents to protect their IP. No patents filed since 2021 seem to confirm this hypothesis.

[https://ocpatentlawyer.com/how-to-protect-invention-without-patent/#:~:text=You%20can%20use%20contracts%20and,get%20the%20required%20patent%20protection.] states that

“You can protect invention rights without a full patent by treating the invention as a trade secret, keeping it confidential, and using contracts like Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) when sharing with others.”

Following the settlement, Nanoco shut down basic operations but kept their top research scientists.

(See follow-on post.)

My fault. Having observed that Furukawa Electric share price has quadrupled in recent years, I forgot that Nanoco investors tend to invest only in companies with strong financial success rather than disruptive technology!

I based a small $25K investment in Furakawa on its nanotube technology, its financial success in recent years, its recently higher trading volumes and the stock having formed a cup-and-handle shape. Well, the handle paid off. Fusion may be far off but certainly probable, and the many companies attempting to achieve it will need Furukawa Nanotubes to inexpensively achieve temperatures greater than 100 million degrees Centigrade. These nanotubes will have many other uses. It is comforting to know that fellow Nanoco investors only make sound financial decisions.

I never suggested that anyone invest in Fusion. I merely offered a suggestion that Furukawa Electric might be a good investment. In less than one month, my investment has grown 35%. A little research would reveal why superconducting nanotubes are so critical to our future and to advancements in Fusion technology. Many of the richest and smartest people in the world are pouring billions of dollars into fusion technology. Advancements are being made in mini and micro Tokamaks that require heating to over 100 million degrees Centigrade to achieve fusion. Furukawa Electric super magnetic nanotubes appears to be a requisite ingredient. Fusion has already been achieved, but high volatility risks creating black holes. Scientists find that they need AI to maintain stable temperatures. Thus, a combination of these nanotubes and AI seem capable of achieving fusion success. Some minimal amount of research would reveal that Furukawa Electric is a successful leader in this technology (not just a pretend leader with low real sales--e.g., Nanoco) and that they are applying this technology and nanotubes to many other fields. I suspect that the Japanese Yen will also appreciate versus the Euro, USD and GBP in coming years. Furukawa Electric has complete insight into Tokamak Energy (a British firm) and has enough confidence to invest an additional millions of dollars in Tokamak Energy. Deep tech venture capital firms like DCVC and Breakthrough Energy Ventures; industrial giants such as Chevron, Siemens Energy, and Nucor; sovereign and quasi-public funds including In-Q-Tel, the European Innovation Council Fund, and Plynth Energy; and strategic players from the energy sector like Shell Ventures and Energy Impact Partners.

You, NanoNano, might be smarter. I suggested Furukawa Electric because these nanotubes facilitate fusion development and nanotube use in so many fields. If you can suggest a better nano technology investment, please do. I am finding this difficult.

Do Your Own Research! Furukawa Electric (5801) seems to hold great promise as a nanotechnology play. They make magnetic nanotubes used by Tokamak Energy, a UK-based fusion energy company, which has partnered with Furukawa Electric to develop high-temperature superconducting/super-magnetic tape. This tape is crucial for confining the plasma in fusion reactors, which reach unimaginably high temperatures. Within 10 years, Fusion could play an huge part in meeting the world's future small and large scale energy needs. Despite what we read about the importance of AI, a major cause of its rapidly increasing valuation is likely is its critical importance managing constant temperature in Fusion reactors. When researching Furukawa, you should also research Tokamak Energy to understand why Furukawa nanotubes are so important for Tokamak and, eventually, other companies developing Fusion technology.

Furukawa, a Japanese company, is also a major supplier of superconducting cables all over the world with a network of factories throughout the world including Japan, USA, Europe, South America, China, and southeast Asia. Furukawa Electric is a leading supplier of this specialized tape.

The collaboration aims to advance commercial fusion energy and address energy security and climate change.

Though Fusion Energy is 5 to 10 years away, I believe that these nanotubes are a key ingredient to success and an indirect way to invest in both Fusion and Nanotechnology. Though still in the early stages of fusion, Furukawa stock prices have risen dramatically. I still have hope for my Nanoco shares, but believe that Furukawa is a better bet. Regarding Nanoco, I wrongly held out hope that strong patents and the technology would overcome extremely poor executive management.

Edelman's incompetence destroyed a company with huge potential and cost all of us a lot of money. I upset many people by frequently railing against him and even expressed fears that he might have accepted payment from Samsung to give them free reign over Nanoco's IPO. He had no sales skills or appreciation thereof. He and a few bloggers on this site insisted that sales skills were not important.

Yet, his inability to read the intentions of Samsung and other supposed partners proved serially disastrous and probably tied Turner's hands during the Samsung settlement process. Certainly, Samsung revealing hidden negotiation secrets at the last minute would have placed the board in a position of accepting the ultimate terms or being sued by shareholders.

Perhaps, Turner saved Nanoco. I do agree with others now the the new CEO is an improvement. I bet on Nanoco and still own 127,000 shares. I was fine with losing my money, but the new CEO might help me break even.

Kooba: I believe there is an LSE rule stating that anyone possessing more than 30% of a listed company would be required to make an offer for the entire company. My memory is a bit vague on this point. If so, acquiring the company at market price is not really possible. Perhaps, someone on his blog can elaborate.

Thanks, LordWM, for your review. I still have hope, Their lack of sales skills had always concerned me. Where can I see a replay of the Investors meeting presentation?

Since the buyback, Nanoco institutional ownerhip has risen to more than 74%< which is typically positive.

Good work, XenOn. it appears that Nanoco continues to advance its technology.