Member Info for amerloque

Don't see how Najing, a company founded in 2009, has any right to request a cadmium exemption. They should not have built a company dependent on restricted materials.

Crow, it is sad that this blog is now more about Nigwit than about Nanoco. I have invested in Nanoco, not in NW. His hypocrisy, narcissism and childishness makes my stomach turn. I am so tired of his 'Me, Me, Me" attitude and his belief that only he can use Google. As I have said before, nothing Nigwit has done has affected the value of Nanoco shares positively. I was extremely happy when he announced he was leaving the site. With him now back in full force, I am finally giving up the ship and will no longer read the Chat portion. Just not worth it.

Nigwit, my comment, to which you responded was " With more than 500 patents, how is it possible that no company has seemingly ever violated Nanoco's patent rights? One common way to lose a patent is failure to contest violations. How is possible that Nanoco is not receiving licensing revenue?" It now seems that you agree that Nanoco has never sued anyone for patent infringement.

Flawed research once again, NW. Do you read what you post? This lawsuit involved Nanosys patents and a counter suit against Nanosys, who was never at risk of infringing on a Nanoco patent. Your narcissism makes me gag. How can you defend such crummy management?

Since you asked, I earned an MBA in Operations Research and marketing, then worked in the forefront of the computing world in Europe, Australia and the USA. I was respected by top relational database and telecom people. I headed up a large part of a hugely successful real-time banking project at the Swiss Bank Corporation (2nd largest bank in Switzerland at the time), competing against UBS, who eventually failed and had to write off 400 Million Swiss Francs. SBC asked me several times to head up their new Forex development. I was an international subsidiary manager, project manager and lead designer for the dominant hardware and software manufacturer during the startup of S.W.I.F.T, the world's banking settlement system. I was given large credit for overcoming enormous problems and making it successful. I even started up and ran a very successful company specializing in advanced telecom formal description techniques, where the ITU (International Telecom Union) asked me to represent the USA for the related ITU standard. Also, I was a regional consulting manager for the most successful business intelligence software company.

Any such misguided enthusiasm should be harshly punished. Four years later, we still see nothing meaningful at CES. No wonder some analysts believe that Nanoco has been cooking the books.

Poor job of research, NW. In your referenced instance, Nanoco was being sued for infringing on Nanosys patents. Nanoco were defending themselves and won. I know of no instance where Nanoco has sued anyone else for infringement on one of their 500+ patents. Perhaps, you can research this.

Yes, it was me, and it happened around 2014 during CES when a Nanoco employee tweeted from Nanoco that they were on their way to CES with great news. No one from Nanoco ever showed up with product news. Note that this tweet WAS NOT AN ANONYMOUS TWEET. IT CAME FROM NANOCO! I am still waiting for good news from CES (not some back room demo).

Regarding Jobs and Gates, I never said that engineers could not be good executives. Silicon Valley success is largely based on great engineers, but the successful ones usually had significant help from great venture management.

One thing about Nanoco has always puzzled me. With more than 500 patents, how is it possible that no company has seemingly ever violated Nanoco's patent rights? One common way to lose a patent is failure to contest violations. How is possible that Nanoco is not receiving licensing revenue?

Not bitter at all. Just would like to see somewhat less arrogance.

Bagpuss, you are wasting your time discussing financial statements with Nigwit. He believes that engineers are best suited to run companies. He rails on others for not having done due diligence, but has stated that it might be a good idea to invest in Quantum Materials Corp, which has pitiful financials. I hate to pop his bubble, but his ramping of Nanoco borders on narcissism and has in no way benefited the long term interests of the company. He fails to recognize that companies need to maintain a balance of strong engineers, sales and executives. While the street respects Nanoco's engineering prowess, Nanoco has not proven it can close sales. The CEO has little respect, and many analysts believe that they have tended to cook the books over the year. Nevertheless, I maintain my investment because I see them eventually being successful or eventually bought out. There seems to be little risk at this point. Why is it I fully expect Nigwit to tell me now that I should not invest in Nanoco?

It is sad that some people on this board have been promoting QMC. Because I hate to see anyone lose money, I have encouraged prospective investors to look at the financials before investing. QMC's are some of the worst I have ever seen and probably much worse than they appear on the surface (last I saw, they had not been audited). The product appears to be vaporware. Otherwise, Rice University would likely have pulled the plug on QMC for failure to live up to the agreed upon payment schedule and sold the rights to someone else. IF the QMC product is fantastic, it might survive by outliving QMC.

Thank you, Crow2, for attempting to introduce reality into the discussion. I look forward to proof of sales, which is key to Nanoco's future.

Knocky, valuable patents should produce revenue when other companies feel a need to adopt the patented technology. For some unknown reason, no one other than partners have chosen to do so. This may reflect the true value of these patents.

Nigwit: Shocking that you think BTB should be grateful to you. Your research and speculation has done nothing to improve the long term share price and has possibly led some investors to overpay for their shares. You react so negatively to criticism of Nanoco management that I almost wonder if you work for Nanoco. Besides this being illegal, I would sell my shares immediately if I thought you had any influence in the company.

We won't really have to wait until April to get the Christmas results. History shows that if there are no announcements of products on the market, the results will be disappointing. Nanoco must be desperate to announce anything resembling good news.

It really does matter. As NN correctly stated, 'recurring' is very important to the financial community.

Thank you nanonano and ddubya for adding realism. As ddubya said, "Everything about the [nano particle] deal suggests our partner has DEEP POCKETS and NEEDS VOLUME PRODUCTION". The cost of funding Nanoco's expansion is obviously a pittance compared to the conjectured market size and the magnitude of the related financial gamble. We can expect that the persons behind this venture are smart business people who would not likely tie themselves to a single source or solution. Nanoco will eventually have to compete for this pot at the end of the rainbow. If Nanoco's TV, lighting and bio related efforts continue to stall, Nanoco could once again find itself at the mercy of a much larger company--even if they fulfill all of the nano-particle contract. We can only hope that Nanoco has made a good business arrangement. This said, there are positives, among them: (1) Nanoco is working with MIT business people to spin out its bio ventures. We can expect Nanoco's cross-division products to benefit from this significant and much needed business acumen. (2) Nanosys' QDOG is an interim solution on the road to electroluminescence. I suspect that Nanoco is ahead of Nanosys in the EL race. (3) Manchester University Nobel prize-winning scientists and graphene inventors have expressed sincere excitement to be working with Nanoco scientists toward applying nano-particles to the real world. We can expect exciting new products to emerge from this collaboration.

Let's get over ourselves, Nigwit. That was an unnecessarily childish retort to a very reasonable question. Please answer.

Whose QDs?

Well said ddubya! I follow this site to get real news. I thank those who help to provide it. We should not fool ourselves into believing that any 'opinions' expressed here, whether negative or positive, affect the long term value of Nanoco shares. Revenue and cost management are key.

Mars1: The second half for Nanoco starts in February.

Jplay asked a legitimate question, Nigwit: What are they doing [ and, implied, why can't they cross the finish line }? I have a question for you. Are you an idiot? Recently, you have: (1) suggested that Nanosys is dead; (2) speculated that now might be a good time to invest in the moribund Quantum Materials Corp; (3) understated Keith Wiggens' share ownership by a factor of 15; (4) constantly speculated while telling others not to speculate; and (5) repeatedly encouraged others on this site to sell.