The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
It could be very low indeed - using NANO's lowest valuation model and just for this case i.e. for US units up to 2021 - which will then cover all global production :-( Or anything up to the lower end of the higher valuation models including some sort of allowance for willness (would be very surprised if that was the case because no doubt that's covered by "no fault") and x3 for the global component. We haven't a clue but the RNA definitely leaves me feeling like NANO will get nothing like fair value. Whatever the number it will be way too low for future sales IMO.
@pereginetrouser it's simply beacuase NANO has give up legal recourse. If Samsung infringe in the future there's nothing NANO can do about it so Samsung definitely will on a massive scale. Now Samsung supply other OEMs those OEMs have to decide whether to develop a new screen themsleves going direct to NANO for the dots or take Samsung's one that's already established as market leader in terms of performance off the shelf. There maybe some out there than can see a niche by out pricing Samsung or out performing them with some wizzy new technology but my guess is that market's going to be very small for NANO.
Would be a complete capitulation from NANO and resounding endorsement of patent infringement. Does seem like NANO have sold the patents to Samsung on the cheap and that Samsung will use them to dominate the display market. Still, all we can do is wait and see.
Certainly feel like expectations have to be tempered. There's no way they can analyse the next 10 years sales and come up with a reasonable figure. Especially now that Samsung are in the third party supply business. And for the low end of settlement estimates as well. Suspect the funders have said, "We want a payment now and don't care about your ongoing business." Anyway, that settlement should still be worth more than we are now and there is sensing to focus on. Glad I didn't buy on Friday but won't be selling today.
Think you must be right NG1616. That "future litigation" guidance is pretty clear. Does seem like a big capitulation for NANO though. Samsung have QD-OLED pretty much sewn up now. Unless other patents become relevant NANO appear to be giving up the display market completely.
EU law but China was modelling a similar one on tit. Doesn't matter whether the UK keeps up to be honest. Once enough key markets start enforcing a ban OEMs will use CFQDs rather than have two types of the same screen. I believe the sticking point for us is exemptions and when they will end.
They won't do that botbot as they would have to re-engineer the whole product. Sony TVs rely on Samsung's proprietary blue oled layers just as much as the dots. Also, Samsung dots aren't the same NANO's. Just made in the same way. NANO did complete product development with several OEMs a few years back. They all fell through for various reasons - delays to rohs, price / development problems and some have speculated pressure from Samsung. It's possible those OEMs will come back now. They don't have to worry about a key supplier being a going concern, cadmium is the past and they won't be in any doubt as to NANOs determination to defend it's IP.
Changes to the process under new patenst would have to be picked up by other producers of course. Obviously Samsung are only on the hook for the ones under litigation. Hopefully this exercise will serve as a great incentive to use any new NANO IP in an above board manner going forward.
Take a different view to you on the first one Hawi. Sansumg are fessing up to using NANO's patented process for producing their CFQDs. Shouldn't it be the case that they get charged at the point of production the same rate regardless of whether those CFQDs end up in a Samsung TV or a Sony one? Must admit I've got no idea which subsidiary supplies the screens to third parties from within Samsung or whether that would make a difference but I'm sure the lawyers would have explicitly incuded third prty OEM supply in the settlement.
Hi BeContrarian.
I assume Hansol will be convered because they are part of Samsung and are being used to supply the dots NANO sued over. Other manufacturers not covered. If Nanosys have been using NANO's production process expect them to be on the receiving end of another suit. If it's worth it that is. I'm never sure whether Nanosys is just noise when it comes to cadmium free dots. Have they really produced in volume or do they just shout about it?
No chance NANO will have given Samsung exculsivity IMO and if they did Samsung will have to be paying a hell of a lot more for it than previously discussed. Goes to your 4th question. Yes, BT has already stated the case has created increased interest NANO dots for display from other OEMs. Both by raising awareness and in those who are already aware a realisation that they will be held to account if they try to get away without paying a license fee.
3rd question. Guess so yes. If NANO end up with £100M or more after costs I can't imagine how they would reinvest all of that back into growing the business.
Not really because the $500M was very speculative in the first place. Some were arguing for $3B. NANO are bound to have compromised on and got potentially less than they might have got in court but no one on the outside really knows what those parameters were in the first place. All we do know is that Samsung have sold a hell of a lot of TVs and even a small amount per unit adds up very quickly. No doubt NANO will have wrung compromises out of Samsung in return in terms of ongoing licensing. It will have to be a balanced compromise. Certainly if NANO get $220M and $5 a TV going forward I will be very disappointed.