Member Info for amerloque

Investigation of Samsung Venture Investment Company might expose the extent of Samsung’s wrong doing. Given that Samsung had started working under nondisclosure with Nanoco in 2007, was the 2010 investment in Nanosys the beginning of a plot to steal Nanoco’s technology and expedite Nanoco’s demise? Circumstantially, it now appears that Samsung sought to block Nanoco’s growth and minimize its credibility. Nanosys was not really a competitor of Samsung, since it produced only cadmium based QDs. By investing in Nanosys, Samsung would insure that Nanosys would receive sufficient funds to dominate the non-Samsung market and gain visibility and credibility. Following Samsung’s follow-on 2015 investment in Nanosys, Michael Pachos, Director at SVIC. “Nanosys is a technology leader and has built a significant business in the space. The company has demonstrated both a technical and business vision in driving adoption of their products and we look forward to contributing to the progress of Nanosys.” This ‘vision’ is very contradictory to that of Samsung’s.
In addition to the above questionable behavior, we have to wonder why Samsung did not push more forcefully for a ban on cadmium quantum dots, a certain huge boost to Nanoco. Samsung’s Hansol benefited from a ready-made market and had no need, nor intention to sell outside of Samsung. A cadmium ban would have meant instant world domination by Nanoco.
Let’s not ignore that Samsung certainly possessed the sufficient financial resources and connections to block Nanoco partnerships and sales prospects, including Apple (iPhone displays), Dow (Corning Materials divestment), Osram (undisclosed LED patent settlement), Tokyo Electron (Applied Material volume discounts) and all Chinese TV manufacturers.
Samsung states the following on its Venture Investment company web site:
"Samsung Venture Investment Corporation is actively
investing in future-oriented businesses based on new and
innovative technologies that are expected serve as new growth engines.

.….Our collaboration is based on managerial know-how and trust."
SVIC comprises more than 70 companies How many of them benefited from Nanoco ‘know how’? Given that Samsung is moving away from traditional chaebol models od management, do they need to block access?

Please treat the following as recognition of a serious world wide problem and not as political speech. Today's version of Capitalism is an abomination, but it can be fixed.

Encroaching distortions within our supposedly capitalist systems have enabled Samsung’s behavior vis -à -vis Nanoco. The growth of illegal trusts such as Amazon, Google and others has long concerned me. I now see this as a worldwide economic pandemic. My perspective has changed upon witnessing the Samsung Chaebol allegedly steal IP from a small British company, Nanocotechnologies, and then use its far reaching influence to undermine the company on many levels so as to bring about Nanoco's failure and thereby limit the latter's ability to defend its IP. This experience has made me realize that the Trust problem is not native to American companies or Samsung. Government controlled Chinese companies carry this even further with tentacles emerging even from government, creating a global chaebol.

Today, there are gigantic trusts worldwide. In the early 1900s, Teddy Roosevelt broke up American trusts and won great popularity in doing so, but these trusts operated mostly within the USA. Thus, they could be broken up with few global ramifications. 21st century globalism has produced new kinds of trusts that operate internationally and are almost impossible to govern. Such trusts can influence pricing, competition, partnerships and sales for themselves and other companies. Through both vertical and horizontal growth, they are able to sprout tentacles that indirectly distort free markets. Capitalism has become one giant shell game. No one country can afford to attack this problem without committing economic suicide. Consequently, companies such as Samsung or Huawei get to say which companies live or die.

This growth in global trusts has resulted in the declining popularity of capitalism despite the fact that our economies are falsely capitalistic. Central characteristics of capitalism must include free markets, the recognition of property rights, competitive wage labor, voluntary exchange, a fair price system and competitive markets. These characteristics have been greatly limited within today's economic systems.

Thanks, Basscadet. I am sure you are right that Nanoco and its lawyers would know. Is anyone on this or the ADVFN site aware of Samsung having applied for a cadmium free patent process anywhere in the world. I cannot find one.

Does anyone know if Samsung ever applied for a cad free QD patent process in Korea? Failure to include such in their response would have a negative impact on their case.

ddubya: I should have included you among those who understood Nanoco's sales and business incompetence. I have lost track of the number of times that Edelman has made specific claims that ultimately proved to be wrong. I have no doubt that many of these claims were purposely misleading. However, I never expected Merck to renew until Samsung responds to the lawsuit.

ddubya: You are right. If it could be proven, shareholders might have a class action cause against Samsung, thus placing more pressure on Samsung to settle! A subpoena for all Samsung Venture Investment Company's communications relating to Nanoco's quantum dot prospects and partners might prove interesting.

This is not just a case of stolen IP. What legal remedy/penalty applies when it is proven that one company has purposely attempted to destroy a much smaller company in order to cover up misdeeds?

strong support would have helped Nanoco with no real damage to Samsung

Correction: outperforms TVs costing 2 or 3 times as much.

BTB: Samsung apparently intends to use QDs in many different products, as indicated by its venture group SVIC's, avowed intention to distribute Samsung technology and management skills across many of its 70+ startups; it is a positive sign and a possible admission of guilt that Samsung seems to be preparing for a future that does not require Samsung's own quantum dots, especially if it is true that they intend to source screens and/or film from China. The recent Korean news that Samsung employees illegally leaked IP to China looks fishy. Was Nanoco technology leaked to China? In order to avoid disruption of plans, are they creating an alibi that would exonerate them from blame for using Nanoco technology in their TVs? There is considerable circumstantial evidence that, in addition to stealing Nanoco's IP, they have continually sought to injure Nanoco. For example,
1) If Samsung stole Nanoco IP, it would benefit enormously if Nanoco were to fail;
1) Samsung have twice funded Nanoco's biggest competitor, Nanosys, who benefited publicity wise;
2) To Nanoco's detriment, Samsung have, on multiple occasions, publicly praised Nanosys, a non-threatening cadmium based QD manufacturer;
3) Samsung have been weak regarding enforcement of the cadmium ban; strong support would have helped Nanoco with no real benefit to Samsung since Hansol had a ready made market for cadmium-free QDs; is it possible that Samsung might have bribed EU decision makers?
4) Did Samsung influence Nanoco sales negatively by giving sweetheart deals, pricing or other, to companies such as Dow Chemical (e.g., purchase of a Corning division), Apple (semiconductor pricing), Chinese and other display firms? I have often railed against gigantic trusts such as Amazon and Google, but the same limitations should be placed world wide on companies such as Samsung. Anti-trust violations among giant many-tentacled companies constantly threaten fair trade world-wide and are impossible to govern.

I am not accusing Samsung of the above disgraceful behavior, but past history indicates that such actions would not be beyond them.

I just bought a Samsung quantum dot tv, then took it back because the Tisen interface is a monstrosity and did not support an OTA DVR app I needed. I then purchased a 55" Hisense H9G, which is also quantum dot, but far superior to the Samsung--brighter, far better interface, much better sound and an amazing picture. Moreover, it only cost $645, but compares well with TVs costing 2 or 3 times as much.

Hi Nige: £500m Settlement + guaranteed long term Contract would be acceptable, with two additional provisos--(1) Samsung would need to agree to cease production of quantum dots for a period of 10 years, and (2) agree not to invest in quantum dot technology other than Nanoco's for 10 years.

ddubya: I suppose the judge would need to make at least one decision when Samsung responds in August--that is, what to do regarding an injunction on sales of Samsung products containing quantum dots.

Thanks, botbot. Because, the world needs to recognize Samsung for what it is, I felt compelled to summarize and clarify some of my previously expressed concerns as comments to the Press Reader article. I provided a detail story regarding what I suspect to be the likely truth regarding Samsung's behavior with respect to Nanoco and why I feel Samsung should have to pay in the billions. These comments were too lengthy to insert here, but you can see them in the Press Reader article.

Thanks Nige. BOL to all.

Samsung Venture Investment Company's transfer of Nanoco technology has also caused tangible injury to UK companies that certainly would have benefited from Nanoco's growth and consequent financial and technological support. Sadly, a hamstrung Nanoco could help no one.

The SVIC website ( https://www.samsungventure.co.kr/english/jsp/company/company.jsp ) claims to honor trust, integrity and ethical conduct). Potential partners and suppliers should beware, This SVIC site omits mention of ethical commitment toward partners and suppliers.

Consequently, UK voters should punish any any all leaders involved in awarding Samsung Telecom even a small telecom contract.

ddubya: I guess you are right that loss of opportunity is not normally considered. The Nanoco-Samsung lawsuit is possibly very different given that Samsung touted a Nanoco competitor's product (that of Nanosys) while stealing Nanoco's product. This is not unconnected from the totality of Nanoco's case against Samsung. Samsung states the following on its Venture Investment company web site:

"Samsung Venture Investment Corporation is actively
investing in future-oriented businesses based on new and
innovative technologies that are expected serve as new growth engines.
Samsung Venture Investment Corporation was established to promote promising small and
medium-sized companies engaging in the development of new technologies. Our collaboration
is based on managerial know-how and trust."
"Samsung Venture Investment Corporation is actively
investing in future-oriented businesses based on new and
innovative technologies that are expected serve as new growth engines."
"Philosophy:
We will devote our talent and technology to creating superior products and
services that contribute to a better global society."

This is all self incriminating, since we cannot ignore that Samsung very likely illegally sourced Nanoco talent, "know how" and technology to create 'superior products' in semiconductors, telecommunication, software, internet, bio engineering and medical industry. It seems only fair that substantial ownership in any of the Samsung Ventures 70+ companies that benefited from Nanoco technology should be transferred to Nanoco.

https://www.sammobile.com/news/samsung-quantum-dot-successor-qned-production-2021/
Samsung has hamstrung Nanoco's development for many years, while continuing to plan its own quantum dot future. The loss of opportunity is partially evidenced by the above. Nanoco, Manchester University and other Nanoco partners possess some of the top nano particle talent in the world, including Nobel Award winners. Courts around the world, when levying penalties, must not overlook Nanoco's overwhelming loss of opportunity and clear leadership role in many nano arenas. None of the estimates I have seen thus far incorporate opportunity costs. These huge short and long term costs are almost incalculable but certainly amount to many billions of dollars.

Correction: This lawsuit will give Samsung a gigantic black eye and force them to renounce their multi billion dollar quantum dot development aspirations for at least the next two years and then reformulate current production plans.

Thank you, n3m3. I do disagree with their comment that Nanoco wants to be acquired.

Analysts who think that Nanoco wants Samsung to acquire them need a serious rethink. Now that Nanoco have sufficient funds to take the lawsuit to a Texas jury trial, why would Nanoco want to help these scumbags dominate the quantum dot world? This lawsuit will give Samsung a gigantic black eye, force them to renounce their multi billion dollar quantum dot development aspirations for at least the next two years, and reformulate current production plans. Outsourcing quantum dots would be an admission of guilt. Besides, winning the suit would boost Nanoco's visibility enormously and provide funds to dominate the cadmium-free quantum dot market. Overnight, Nanoco would emerge as a world force. Besides hundreds of dollars in damages, Nanoco's improved sales prospects would cause the share price to soar.