Member Info for amerloque

Good find, nanonano. This appears to be a significant patent.

70.46K shares have been traded on the US OTC market, the most recent at $0.30. Shares were purchased earlier today at $0.50. Some traders seem willing to pay high prices. This could prove meaningful.

Thanks, Morbox. Great work!

Based on Morbox's posts and my subsequent research, I understand that there has been no decision to institute an 'inter partes review' (IPR) and that Samsung could appeal the stay ruling only if and when such a review is instituted. I am not a lawyer.

Thanks, Morbox. When I read your post, I had a question as to how Nanoco could avoid IPR Institution. The website below recommends how to accomplish this. It appears that Mintz has done well thus far.

Tip #4 for Avoiding IPR Institution: Don’t Argue Facts
https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2231/2020-11-09-tip-4-avoiding-ipr-institution-dont-argue-facts

I'd folow you almost anywhere, Feeks. You have always been realistic and right on the mark.

I agree, SteadyD. Share price has risen so much on such high volume that it must involve a big business deal or progress in negotiations with Samsung. Something is going on. What is is Innovate about?
By the way, I love the energy, research effort and tone on this site.

You are correct, Basscadet. Samsung is proposing a new chip plant on land next to an existing plant in Texas. My apologies. I still distrust Samsung's intentions.

No argument, PP, regarding expansion. I pointed out in the past couple of days that Samsung already had plants in Texas. Expansion of presence is not the same thing as expansion of a plant, which would likely prove inefficient. Even in South Korea, Samsung does not have a single plant making TVs and semiconductors. To my knowledge, the possibility of placing the $10B TV plant in Texas is very recent news. Do you believe that Samsung would hesitate to use all possible means attempt to influence the outcome of the trial? Having observed Samsung conduct vis-à-vis Nanoco and other companies for over 10 years, I assure you they would not. Circumstantial evidence says it would be naive to believe so. I don't see how anyone can honestly defend Samsung. Assume the worst!

Eccl: The factory story has been around since last year, but I have never seen them mention Texas as a site.

It is possible that Samsung and Nanoco are negotiating on having Nanoco supply quantum dots to Samsung. LG advances in QD TV's may be pushing Samsung toward a settlement. We have seen recent articles intimating that Samsung is moving away from QDs for the next two years.

It is reasonable to expect that Samsung would have at least one person posting on relevant blogs. I am not insinuating that any of the recent posts came from Samsung employees. Just raising a caution we would be naive to ignore. Note that the proposed plant is only a possibility. There is no commitment! Nor, was there any mention of extending the current plant. Why would they have a single plant making semiconductors and TVs? Nanoco share price rose almost 20% on more that 3 times normal volume following the plant announcement. I don't see another reason for the rise, but I welcome suggestions.

Guess what. If Nanoco wins this lawsuit, it would effectively deny Samsung the right to build this $10B cadmium free quantum dot plant. Could this attempt to influence the court and the jury be more blatant?

Good suggestion, Frostbar. I considered an in-your-face party in South Korea, but we need to protect whistleblowers. I do think that we should invite the journalists who have fought hard against Samsung's corruption. Wherever we hold it, we should also invite Verizon executives and hold a kangaroo court.

The board has already visited Runcorn. I propose a massive party with board, employees, shareholders and whistleblowers in Mallorca or some other island.

"without undertaking"

Samsung already has a big semiconductor plant in Texas. Such companies have an obligation to place production in countries where they sell product. While Samsung, as usual, can justify this announcement, the timing is considerably suspect and will likely be seen so by a Texas jury. Samsung can claim justification for every instance in which Nanoco has been blocked. Most likely, nothing is provable with undertaking an enormous investigation, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Whistleblowers are welcome.

BBD: Since you expressed doubt, I am obliged to report the unvarnished truth. First of all, Korean media has religiously supported Samsung over the years. Separately, USA Today, reported on Sept 13, 2020 that "Bloomberg... spent about $1 billion on his own failed Democratic primary bid before dropping out and immediately endorsing Biden." Bloomberg Subsequently, announced, "he plans to spend at least $100 million to help Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in the crucial battleground state of Florida". Bloomberg was later reported openly to be paying personal fines of otherwise illegal voters so that they could vote legally.
DO NOT BELIEVE that Bloomberg runs an unbiased newspaper. He is in this for profit and power. Note also that the Washington Post is owned by Bezos. How do we even allow this? Samsung also has huge media investments. I admire the Korean journalists who are pushing for a reckoning at the possible expense of their jobs.

I suspect that the rise is due to news articles regarding Samsung considering placing a $10B plant in Texas. This somewhat obvious attempt to influence a jury indicates that Samsung expects the Markman hearings to rule in favor of Nanoco's patents being legitimate. This is very positive for Nanoco.

Most journalists, today, are nothing more than parrots, BBD. With newspapers so dependent of social media, serious investigative journalists risk losing their jobs.