Member Info for Basscadet

Just to mix things up a bit, for some off topic relief, I'll point out Nanogoeddon that hydrocarbon sector subsidies were $59 trillion in 2022 and expected to rise by a further 7% by 2025.

I think it's market froth and positivity over confidence in the new business direction set by the CEO to be honest. I can't see a big change in revenue or profitability in the this cycle. We may be getting a bit ahead of ourselves.

60p, wow. Didn't expect that yet.

@Nanonano, pretty sure there it was also commented in RNAs from the time that the CFQD line (I think capable of producing dots for around 1 million TVs a year) was being put under dust sheets but could be brought back into production easily if needed.

They were cutting staff at the time. Those that were left were focussing on the new line being set up for the "US customer." Equipment wasn't interchangeable between the two becuase they were making sufficiently different particles.

@Screenlearner, it's going way back so not 100% but I do recall that when the production line for novel nano-materials was set up it was a new line and described as additional to the one for display CFQDs. The CFQD one being mothballed but can be revived.

Can only be hope lordsloads.

and then buys it all so he can shape it how he wants.

I think the funding partners have had a lot to do with it FlyingHigher. If they advised they would pull the plug for any part of it at the last minute there's nothing NANO could do.

I don't think anybody cares whether there's a one off payment or ongoing royalties for production as long as it feels fair (altough I don't presonally believe any estimate will accurately reflect the size of the market as it will grow exponentially). It's the combination of "low end" with a one off payment which has irked people and fair enough on that. Still, nothing to be done but wait and see now.

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.

Wasn't Friday's RNA released bacause the court case was starting and people would have asked why it hadn't? The dockets released over the weekend would have confirmed the settlement process had started.

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.

$125M for lifetime value of the patents would surey be chicken feed. Comparable to what a band earns from their first album.

Guidance is for a global settlement Hawi. I would hope that once we get passed the $100M the funding partner's share starts going down. Ni idea though so fingers crossed on that.

Pretty sure I read somewhere that TCL are sourcing from Samsung.

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.