Member Info for Basscadet

It's absolute rubbish. Samsung wouldn't control anything unless they went for a complete takeover.

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.

Strikes me as someone who only heard about the case this morning, had a Friday filing dealine and spent half an hour resarching on the internet to get enough words together.

Yes of course. Any settlement would always have been "no fault". Even if they were found guilty and ordered to pay a huge sum by the court they would still not have admitted any fault to be honest.

Just IMO but have some patience with the SP. It's worth at least double where it is now on a conservative settlement alone. Then there's licensing to add on. It won't shoot up. It'll go in waves with pullbacks.

It's a possibility. Especially given NANO platform technologies align well with Samsung's product roadmaps. Other things in play than display.

This is great news. Samsung is confirming they're in the wrong (although the settlement itself will purposefully state they're not of course), NANO have always said they wouldn't take a low number (expecting something in the 100s of millions) so let's hope they're good for that, it'll be a global settlement (why would Samsung stop in one jurisdiction but carry on in others) and include an ongoing license agreement which will potentially be worth more than the settlement.

It also removes a drawn out appeal process and uncertainty. Very happy this morning. Well done for staying firm all holders.

The current case covers all screens produced by Samsung for the US market including any put in cars. Although there won't be any yet a licensing agreement going forward would cover them.

There are obviously costs to producing the cobalt. If cobalt value goes up due to those costs coming down then copper costs come down.

Pretty sure interest yes and inflation no.

Thanks for clearing that up Doch. I was getting confused.

Yep. I guess so. I appreciated your comments on funding below ShearClass but if results are so good I can't help but think REDX would easily get financial backing and possibly a favourable partnership to help get through phase 3.

Fantastic news. Although I can't help but think the same was reported for another patient back in November. Fantastic anyway.

Agree. Warrants should be exercised or cancelled. That's the point of them.

He'll be back. If only to say he won't be posting anymore.

'ere we go.

Pretty sure BT said they would only find out on the Monday morning of the trail whether it was on or not.