Member Info for amerloque

You guys are shaming me. I find myself ranting while you continue to provide meaningful content. Thanks.

It is worth mentioning that the smartest person in the world, self described as possessing "real business and market acumen", once recommended that we purchase Quantum Materials shares in spite of the latter possessing perhaps the world's worst balance sheet. He also frequently argued that scientists are best suited to run Nanoco and that skilled business, negotiation and sales skills were unnecessary. My comments here are not demeaning, but simple fact.

Thanks, Troublesome. Perfect analogy. You always make me laugh--even when I am the target.

A person (Nigwit), who was banned from this blog for bad behavior, seems unable to stay away. Posting on the ADVFN blog, he inexplicably felt it necessary to call some posters on this site half-wits. My sincere thanks to the kind persons on the ADFN site who came to our defense. I similarly abhor rudeness and am glad that we don't have to deal with the immaturity constantly detracting from the many intelligent posts.

Thanks, Hawi. This is good news. The idea of Nanoco switching lawyers or Mintz bailing at this point caused me more than a little concern.

According to their web site, Ward, Smith and Hill frequently work with other law firms. If Hawi's clipped quote is from the most recent court filing, this must be the case. Ward et al are local and certainly well connected. Ward's dad is a partner in the firm and the most illustrious former patent judge in East District Texas court history. Samsung should be nervous.

It appears that Nanoco have changed lawyers. Why? Perhaps, it relates to funding.

Thanks, Hawi. Very positive. Looking forward to seeing Samsung's response.

RC30: Thank you for enlightening me. I have never meant to demean South Koreans, but instead to document dangers and possible misdealing regarding Samsung. I agree that ME should have known the danger he faced with Samsung. His problem is that he is a terrible business person and executive (whose job it is to structure the organization to meet all needs). Had Nanoco initially recognized the need for proper sales and business people, they would not likely have found themselves in such dire straits. When they did finally create a sales organization, it seems that they hired people with seeming industry influence rather than real sales and negotiating talents. Nanoco still needs to address this shortcoming.

Based on Samsung's behavioral history, they would not hesitate to 'influence' well placed persons within the European Union, which have been strangely silent regarding the cadmium ban.

Having already painted themselves into a corner by selecting the funding partner prior to reach an agreement on details, does anyone believe that they could make a good business agreement with this funding partner? Nanoco's business dealings tend to reek of desperation, which is probably why they find themselves in the current situation.

In order to avoid the funding costs and then be able to focus on the future, Nanoco should negotiate immediately for 100M, legal costs, future patent respect and an ongoing contract.

Why would the funding agreement not be settled prior to selecting the partner? Once again, a Nanoco decision appears to run counter to good business practice--so much so that it is nonsensical.

DDuby: No proof that Dow and Samsung colluded, but it is very suspicious. Like you, I never understood Dow's lack of effort. I always wondered what happened to the Dow plant, which I understand was located next door to a Samsung display plant.
April 3, 2015 Samsung picks Hansol over Dow Chemical for quantum dot TVswww.pressreader.com › the-korea-times › 20150403

While Dow Chemical will certainly have to testify, it could be as a hostile witness.
To clarify what I am suggesting:
In January 2014, Samsung, Corning and Dow possibly reached a deal in which Dow Chemical would transfer IP to Hansol in return for this and other agreements. Thus, Hansol is miraculously able to invent a cadmium free technology closely resembling Nanoco's and close the sale to Samsung by January 2015.
Please note that I am not saying that this happened, only that it is suspicious. Certainly, these huge companies have huge leverage and incentive.

While Dow Chemical will certainly have to testify, it could be as a hostile witness.

BTB: Dow could certainly provide critical testimony. Would they be willing to testify given multi-billon dollar dealings involving Dow Corning, Corning and Samsung leading up to Samsung choosing Hansol in January 2015 as its CFQD provider (with no protest from Dow ).

On January 15, 2014, Corning designated a new series of its preferred stock as Fixed Rate Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock, Series A, par value $100 per share, and issued 1,900 shares of preferred stock at an issue price of $1 million per share, for an aggregate issue price of $1.9 billion, to Samsung Display with the acquisition of its equity interest in Samsung Corning Precision Materials. Corning also issued to Samsung Display an additional amount of preferred stock at closing, for an aggregate issue price of $400 million in cash.

Until June 1, 2016, Corning and The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) each owned 50% of the common stock of Dow Corning Corporation

DDubya, we can hope that the court will block Samsung sales early in the proceedings.

My reading is that this pertains to a US company with markets extending outside of the US. Does not sound like STMicro, since they are a Swiss company. It is great to hear that Nanoco is about to sign new contracts.

Based on my previous research, Samsung needed to respond to the lawsuit within 45 days (not 90). I welcome any proof otherwise. If so, the delay might have been due to an agreement to negotiate a settlement. If Samsung had requested an extension, there should have been a corresponding announcement from the court. Samsung's aggressive press releases indicate either that it does not fear Nanoco or that some settlement is near. The increasing share price combined with increased volume is positive.