The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
https://www.yahoo.com/now/stmicroelectronics-eys3d-microelectronics-showcase-collaboration-140000107.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAP_Ndr_Y1fdnyJ8wS0ywVCvfYxplgRP9A52nbZKrXhA6eYozJ3gfhQAzNoa7kFTBACOjIkkGtlBMVzQ5nh_N2fL6fUq0N7b5IydEghwgM-bmWE17hZJF1Ks7B9EYRY32HyZ_GggOEqznhvXqhVRgnZ82zhZywWgEzD4y9VQICD7
STMicro is demonstrating infrared vision at CES. This should produce new sales. Hopefully, it still uses Nanoco Heatwave.
I concur, LordWM. I have enjoyed the general tone of many contributors who have often provided substantial history, thought and research. It is possible that Nanoco's legal team may even benefit from some small part of this.
Happy New Year to all!
https://work.chron.com/facetoface-negotiation-advantages-3209.html.
Your question surprises me, Sammy. You just screwed up (haha) and gave me a soapbox.
I have found that most successful negotiators prefer to do so face to face. Reading customers has often been Nanoco's most serious past failure. Poor sales skills made things worse. Edelman fallaciously believed that scientists are more suited to running a company than are business and sales people (thankfully, BT has business expertise). When Nanoco did finally hire an executive sales people, they chose someone they hoped held influence over customers. Never forget that a good sales person's most important skill is the ability to read customers. Still, DOW and Samsung were not closely managed. I suspect that more frequent face to face involvement might have helped Nanoco recognize their intentions earlier.
As discussed, BT needs to be at the trial for mulitple reasons. There is another possible need for his presence--negotiating new deals. Companies dependent of future supplies of CFQD or Heatwave products would do well to lock in future orders ASAP. It is likely that Nanoco have already begun negotiations with multiple companies and are awaiting trial results to finalize agreements. No company or prospective partner should risk being left out in the cold.
Many countries will require interior monitoring in 2024 cars. Since many 2024 cars hit the market in 2023, it is likely that STMicro will begin producing image sensing products in 2023. Hopefully, they will utilize Nanoco technology.
@sammy88: Your input and opinions are greatly appreciated. While your legal knowledge and opinions have clearly improved this blog, your relatively recent involvement may limit your ability to recognize fully the totality of Samsung's egregious behavior vis-a-vis Nanoco, which has been fully documented in past blogs. As you say, "BT...has consistently talked about being satisfied with a fair value settlement and a settlement requiring compromise from both parties." While he is obliged to appear reasonable, I am certain that his view of "fair" is light years from that of Samsung. Nanoco has demanded fair treatment for many years, to no avail. Compromise will eventually occur, but the right to define 'fair' now belongs to Nanoco, at which point compromise can begin.
Hansol had existed for some time as a toilet paper manufacturer, yet they were able to compete with the some of the world's top scientists at Manchester University who received Nobel Prize for the discovery of graphene? Laughable!! Unsurprisingly, Samsung does not seem to have submitted any mass production cadmium free process patent claims.
Great short summary for anyone considering investing, LordWM. Thanks. After more than 12 years of continued investing, I find this hugely exciting. It is hard to imagine that any willfulness claim could be more deserving of 3x damages. The timing is also great given recent articles exposing how huge international companies and cartels (Samsung among the most egregious) have exploited the US patent system. Moreover, Nanoco lawyers can probably demonstrate that Samsung repeatably sought to block Nanoco marketing success in order to prevent competition and possibility of lawsuits. Nanoco management, lawyers and funders have been magnificent in the pursuit of this case.
Rather condescending, Barbon. I should perhaps have said "source via". I couldn't care less who actually produces the quantum dots as long as Samsung and its stolen IP customers use Nanoco technology in the future. Question 'D' should have clarified this issue. I believe that my questions are legitimate and deserve an answer. I find it incomprehensible that Nanoco and its lawyers would fail to consider this in the final settlement. If not, Nanoco needs to change lawyers and management.