Member Info for amerloque

Unlikely comment was directed toward earlier Hansol comment.

Unlikely.

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.

I stand corrected. Thanks, Hawi.

@Kind: I believe that you need to register for the Investors meeting at the nanocotechnologies.com web site. I doubt that my link would work for you.

Thanks, Troublesome.

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.

Thanks for the link, JBongo. I have posed the following multipart uestion:
(a) If Nanoco wins its lawsuit against Samsung, do Nanoco expect Samsung and its current display customers to then source from Nanoco? (b) What consequent sales volume is anticipated? (c) What leverage will Nanoco have to force current customers of this stolen IP to make future purchases from Nanoco? (d) What options are available for accommodating the increased production?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06294-y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brEm4mEizns
Plasma Kinetics (google it) could be the first company to economically convert hydrogen into energy for use in cars. It appears that they do so using cadmium (?) quantum dot lasers to convert solid state hydrogen on film into electricity. Could Nanoco QD's or HeatWave play a role in this potentially gigantic market?

I associated tin with lead because tin cans used to contain lead coatings and solder.

Thank you, Frostbar.

I am not a scientist, but Quantum Science's lead reference may have to do with the fact that Nanoco's Infra-red QDs may contain tin, while their products do not.

Per Nanoco Patent description,
"Indium tin oxide thin films with both near-infrared transparency and excellent resistivity
Patent number: 10167545
Abstract: An indium tin oxide film containing by weight about 90% In2O3 and about 10% SnO2 is prepared using a low-energy deposition sputter process on a substrate. The indium tin oxide film thus obtained has a carrier concentration on the order of 1020/cm3 and a carrier mobility greater than 30 cm2/Vs. The low carrier concentration results in an increased transmission in the near infra-red region, while the high carrier mobility results in good conductive properties.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 20, 2017 "

"Does tin have lead?
Tin is the 49th most abundant element in Earth's crust, representing 2 ppm compared with 75 ppm for zinc, 50 ppm for copper, and 14 ppm for lead."

I welcome clarification.

Not a huge investment. 3 billion Korean Won is only $2,081,556.

Not a huge investment. 3 billion Korean Won is only $2,081,556.

Financial reporters would not have lived with Nanoco long enough to recognize that that Samsung is the corporate reincarnation of David and Goliath minus the slingshot. Samsung is a Chaebol consisting of more than 100 companies, many of which are enormously powerful in their own right. No competitor or potential partner can afford to offend Samsung. Financial reporters don't tend to be mental giants. They tend to be lazy, only capable of performing basic analyses, and unable to recognize that Nanoco prospects cannot afford to offend Samsung. The truth lies in circumstantial evidence that would require in-depth investigation to recognize that Nanoco has been extremely successful in producing commercial products of immense value. However, Samsung has managed to steal their technology while blocking their path to success at every fork in the road. This "Fool" report is simply another instance of ignorant reporting. It is positive in that it has enabled us to buy valuable shares at a low price.

Thanks, Hawi. Brilliant research! I suspect that Samsung lawyers might have made a mistake in blocking mention of total Samsung sales of $7B+ but allowing mention of unit sales of $2,000. The court decision regarding convoy sales is huge. Given the enhancements afforded by Nanoco QD's coupled with Samsung's heavy emphasis on QD's in their advertising, the jury could award Nanoco a significant portion of the unit sale price. Knowledge of total unit sales, which will not now be available, might have served to temper the unit award.

A Nanoco win will likely result in more contracts. These potential contracts could be the real pot of gold.

Very interesting, Nanonano. Thanks.

Please explain your comment RE Nanoco quantum efficiency. Thanks.