Member Info for amerloque

Jurors need to understand that Nanoco is not in a David vs Goliath fight. Rather, it is a minuscule David fighting hoards of Goliath's at every turn for more than ten years. Can anyone doubt that Samsung has used every trick possible to block Nanoco. The $10B carrot in Texas is just another instance and should count as a final strike against Samsung. I have little doubt that Nanoco would be bigger that Nanosys today had Samsung not acted so egregiously at every turn. When Nanoco finally wins this fight, the only faiir penalty should be calculated as (1) the difference between the market values of Nanosys and Nanoco (note also that Nanosys is now investing substantial sums in at least one other very promising quantum dot company, UbiQD, which should produce a nice profit); (2) PLUS the value of Samsung's quantum dot profits to date; (3)TIMES THREE for willful misconduct.
Such a calculation could amount to many billions of dollars.

BTB: It is possible that Nanoco used the Sell to discover potential funders of its lawsuit. It never made sense that Nanoco would sell the company from such a weak position. Companies such as Apple might discreetly support the lawsuit.

Nanonano, they would never sell IP, but they could license it.

Perhaps, the best way to estimate the loss would be to determine the current market value (assuming they were public) of Nanosys, then add in what Nanoco would made had Samsung collaborated with them instead of allegedly stealing their IP. Ignoring the fact that its CEO was a disaster, Nanoco was a leader in quantum dots (i.e., cadmium free) and was in a better position than Nanosys.

I re-post this excerpt because it possibly relates to Nanoco and Samsung Electronics, where Samsung set out to build its cadmium free quantum dot factory in 2012. The article's author voiced the opinion that a son of Jo Jun-ung, the Special Prosecutor of this case, was hired as a section chief at Samsung Electronics in 2012 one of multiple bribes to get a future Supreme Court Justice to support suspending a conviction of Samsung's President. Samsung Electronics is where Samsung developed its cadmium free quantum dot technology. We need to know whether he was helped to develop/steal quantum dot technology.

“The story of “too big to jail” found root in “judicial favors” granted to Samsung Group’s founding family. “

“Lee Kun-hee was indicted without detention and received only suspended sentences twice in 1995 and in 2009.
“Lee’s 2009 trial is a real shame in South Korea’s judiciary history, to say the least. In his trial, the Supreme Court of Korea overturned the High Court decision and delivered Lee Kun-hee a guilty verdict on the issuance of Samsung SDS bonds with warrant. However, in a later sentencing trial, Seoul High Court acknowledged Lee’s guilt but did not change his sentence, thereby confirming the suspended sentence.
“This judicial favor paid off for this trial’s head judge, Kim Chang-seok, who was appointed as Justice of the Supreme Court in 2012 during the Lee Myung-bak Administration (Lee Myung-bak, who was South Korea's president from 2008 to 2013, was accused of ... In return for the bribes, Mr. Lee did favors for Samsung executives). Moreover, after the trial ended, a son of Jo Jun-ung, the Special Prosecutor of this case, joined Samsung Electronics as a section chief. Given the fact that it takes a new recruit at least eight years to reach this position, Jo’s insertion at this level of management despite having no work experience raised suspicions and public criticism. Eventually, he resigned.
“… early-retired judges typically join legal teams of chaebol firms or law firms whose big clients are chaebol firms. When particular families control a significant portion of a country’s economic resources, judges with career concerns are likely to make distorted judicial decisions, which may be beneficial to the private interests of these families.”

we need further explanation, BTB. Where did you learn this?

It is easy to believe that Samsung stole IP from Erisson. I look forward to an injunction against Samsung that will bring Verizon to its knees. Well deserved!

More Samsung tentacles! It seems that GMT Capital Corp Bay Resource Partners Funds has multiple investments in Samsung, Samsung Ventures among them. Given their substantial gains from Nanoco shorts, have they been benefited from inside information? Did they have early knowledge that Samsung was never going to buy from Nanoco? It was not unreasonable to sell short on Nanoco when it was highly priced. My question is, "What justified holding on to the shorts for so long. We need an explanation.

You make some very good points, Frostbar.

Good point, Nano. Samsung constantly held out sufficient carrots to keep Nanoco in line. Edelman was a lousy executive, possessing little sales or business acumen and unable to recognize that Samsung were playing them. Fortunately, the board seems to have gained respect for these skills. Edelman was certainly in a Catch-22 with Samsung acting as goalkeeper. If this gets to trial, Nanoco will be a sentimental favorite after having bet their company on a perceived worldwide desire to protect the environment, only to discover that the RoHS and other government bodies were windmills. Europe needs to take these organizations to task.
Despite the above failures, I believe that Nanoco will be successful and have no intention to sell my shares. I appreciate peoples frustration, but saying that Nanoco is a one trick pony is like saying that quantum dots are a one trick pony. I believe that STMicro is a great opportunity that will not be blocked by Samsung. biotechnology is huge. I also anticipate a significant rise in share price if Nanoco gets past Markmam.

I found the following site reassuring. Unless Nanoco failed to have appropriate nondisclosures signed, it seems highly unlikely that prior art claims can be upheld.

https://henry.law/blog/what-is-prior-art

“There’s always going to be prior art for any invention. In the words attributed to a famous federal judge, “Only God works from nothing. Man must work with old elements.” Patentability doesn’t hinge on the existence of prior art. Instead, whether your invention is patentable depends on how different your invention is from the prior art.”

“There are two criteria for patentability over prior art. First, the invention must be new (or “novel” in the words of the statute) — which generally means it can’t be identical to any single product or reference. Quite simply, this prevents you from patenting ideas that already exist in the public sphere or in previously-filed patent applications.”

“But at the next level, your invention needs to be inventive (or  “non-obvious” in the words of the statute) — that is, more than a trivial variation of prior art. That means an invention typically can’t be patented if a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field of technology could derive the invention from the prior art by making obvious changes or substitutions.”

Thanks, Morbox for the Docketbird alert. Samsung's contentions don't seem to hold water. Samsung has been aware of Nanoco's patents since 2010 and must have reviewed them extensively prior to producing massive numbers of TVs using the technology. NGR1616 makes very good points in his/her last paragraph. Nanoco needed to be cautious. Moreover, they needed to bring this suit in the USA. Doing so required Samsung selling in the US, then for Nanoco to acquire financial backing. Hopefully, the court will keep this in mind as well as the fact that Nanoco's patents are expiring. Samsung's use of cadmium free quantum dots has already caused doubt and consequent damage. In five years, patents will have lost most a their value through expiration and technology innovation.

BBD: Worth poiniting out how unlikely it is for Nanoco to have needed Samsung help in submitting patents.

Similarly, best wishes to you, Basscadet and everyone else on this site. Except for Samsung benefiting by blocking Nanoco, I generally agree with you. The fact that Nanoco referenced Samsung in their RoHS was meaningless given that Samsung, supplying only itself, was the world's only successful supplier of CFQDs. What other case could they make to prove sufficient supply? An RoHS ban would have been a huge boost to Nanoco sales and profitability and would possibly have enabled them to sue Samsung much earlier. Proving Samsung specs comparable to cadmium dots was tantamount to proving their own technology. If Samsung were dependent on stolen Nanoco IP, as alleged in court, they would certainly have benefited from Nanoco weakness.
Cartels and trusts are very much related to this. Remember that Samsung is an enormous Chaebol run by a single family, and then review the unending list of companies created by Samsung Ventures. They create the environment that enables Samsung to walk all over smaller companies. Transactions with individual Chaebol entities can seem justified, yet limit fair trade. It would be naive to believe that Samsung does not abuse its Chaebol power or that the world's business executives and government leaders aren't tempted by greater profits or greed. It is not just IP at stake, here. The principle of Fair Trade is also at risk.

Bascadet: Regarding your comments:
(1) I can't disagree regarding your comments on crony capitalism, which has distorted capitalism beyond recognition. I do not believe that communism is any less crony.
(2) If the USA were to break up internal trusts and cartels, the respective US companies would lose substantial bargaining power when competing against consequentially more powerful foreign companies possessing significant yet subtle negotiating advantages.
(3) Why would the RoHS ban have been in Samsung's interest, since they repeatedly claimed that they needed their entire production for internal use and had no intention to market their products externally?
(4) This is the first I have heard of Nanoco having used technical information from Samsung in their submissions. Please explain. I have tried to limit my comments to reasonable possibilities inferred from past Samsung history and facts. As far as I can determine, Nanoco began working and negotiating with Samsung around 2009. Nanoco's critical process Patent was submitted by 2006 or 2007 at the latest. I see no such patent from Samsung. Moreover, Samsung hid the fact that it was building a plant to produce cadmium free quantum dots. Why did they need Nanoco help? Note that Nanoco technology evolved out of research performed at Manchester University, where the discovery of a process for developing two dimensional nano materials resulted in Nobel Laureates for two university scientists, Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov.

(6) It is extremely doubtful that any of this can be proven, which is why I have stressed the need for worldwide antitrust laws. Antitrust laws are regulations that encourage competition by limiting the market power of any particular firm. This often involves ensuring that mergers and acquisitions don't overly concentrate market power or form monopolies, as well as breaking up firms that have become monopolies. Antitrust laws also prevent multiple firms from colluding or forming a cartel to limit competition through practices such as price fixing. The Teddy Roosevelt was very effective in breaking up Trusts and Cartels in the USA early 1900's. Today, it would be suicidal for any country to attack this issue internally without first reaching effective international agreements, since foreign companies would then achieve dominance. Clearly, something needs to be done to stop the Samsungs, the Googles and the Chinese cartels of the world, yet protect companies such as Nanoco, which seek to achieve phenomenal goals.

Basscadet: Several things are clear:
(1) Samsung is a multi-tentacled vertical and horizontal trust capable of exerting enormous influence and pressure over other companies and governments. These tentacles stretch to almost every major Nanoco ex-business partner.
(2) History confirms that Samsung falls far short of what most of us consider ethical business practices and would not hesitate to take extreme measures to steal technology and then take steps to protect all stolen technology.
(3) Coincidentally, Samsung made timely, sweetheart deals with almost every Nanoco partner. These deals included settling lawsuits, acquiring stressed companies, attractive pricing to huge customers, comfortable deals with associated partners. Moreover, it would be difficult for trading partners to ignore the potential for favorable future business agreements.
(4) Why has the RoHS cadmium ban been repeatedly blocked and watered down? This ban was critical to Nanoco's survival while it was meaningless to Samsung, since they possessed their own in-house market. Samsung certainly stood on the sidelines. It is not unlikely that they would have taken steps to influence the process.
(5) Samsung was committed to cadmium free quantum dots, yet invested in and praised excessively a Nanosys, cadmium based product, thereby reducing Nanoco's position. Nanoco repeatedly claimed that they were working directly with at least 14 serious prospects, all of which disappeared. How do you think they would react if Samsung confidentially told them that Nanoco's patents were invalid?
(6)

LTH: Look at marketwatch.com nnocf "Advanced 5 day chart range" with a frequency of "Daily". Smaller frequencies show some trades with no associated volume, causing trading to look much lighter than it actually was. On the 3 days in question, the daily chart certainly posted to higher volumes with nearly a ~2500% increase in normal daily volume.

Please don't trade on the following info. I am only reporting some unusual trades. On 12/14 and12/15, it seems that there were multiple US over-the-counter trades totaling more than 221,000 at $0.2199. This seems extraordinary. This is particularly unusual given the LSE Exchange declining price. Someone in the US may know something.

ddubya: Sadly, government is typically as corrupt as any of these companies. How else have Samsung officials stayed out of jail for so many years. Need examples in Europe and the USA? Just look at how RoHS efforts to ban cadmium have evolved over the past 15 years--very hard to believe government officials have not enriched themselves. How do USA government officials manage to become overnight multi-millionaires on government salaries?