Member Info for Basscadet

I think a big factor is that money has nowhere else to go. With interest rates paying nothing, bonds paying nothing, etc all newly created money finds it's way into equities. Somewhere where it's doing no good fighting COVID of course. The bubble will burst either when earnings are disappointing one too many times and everyone bails, central banks stop printing or inflation eventually does show up. One thing's for sure. When the bubble bursts the drop is going to be massive. Unfortunately this whole process is syphoning even more real wealth off to the rich. It's the 99% who will suffer.

One could argue that money could go to gold. A lot has been and probably more will do.

It is depressing how difficult it is for us to get rid of these dirty products.

Apple are a large indirect IQE customer and placing a big order for new handsets is postive for the sector as a whole.

IQE have VCSELS in the Face ID cameras; and potentially wireless components, power converters and higher power VCSELS for LIDAR in the pro if it goes the same way as the latest iPads. There will be more wireless components and power converters if a handset has mm wave 5G. So, large orders are good for IQE, all handsets having mm wave 5G would be excellent (that is in doubt) and Pros getting LIDAR for AR even better.

Would have thought this would have risen a bit further today with Apple ordering 75m new iPhones from suppliers for the next quarter.

Fair enough. Better reading Bagpuss.

"I don't think we can read too much into this, it's just standard protocol for the defendant to try to save face with a counter-claim. "

I disagree BTB. Unless they have filed other forms of defence as well the fact Samsung aren't arguaing that they haven't used NANO's technology is very significant IMO.

So the counterclaim is that the patents aren't valid? That would imply Samsung are acknowledging they used the technology in question. Makes NANO's case much stronger if all they have to do is prove validity. Would be a massive gaff to have made a msitake registering the patents in the first place.

All eyes on which components are in which models.

Same old same old. Jumped the gun. Snake oil salesman. It looks pretty safe but efficacy is not proven.

The first set of results that were described as positive in the US were marginal at best. Definitely overhyped and used by the board of Gilead to abuse the market.

I don't think we supply directly to Huawei but we have customers who do. IQE has repeatedly said we have robust diverse supply chains. I doubt we would be affected much beyond some supply chain disruption in one area as someone else between IQE and the end user will fill any vacuum. This could be a sentiment based drop in the SP caused by the order or just drift and Trump will get more and more desperate as the election gets closer of course. Who knows what he'll do.

There'll be a chicken and egg situation though. We can't scale up until there is some demand and the demand won't come in until we can come down in price by scaling up. So, being a large order this is a big step.

I'm actually more concerned about the environmental credentials of the product if anything. Degradeable in industrial composting environments is actually a bit rubbish (no pun intended). How many will make into industrial composters after use? Goes to show how hard this science is I suppose. Hopefully this is still enough of an incentive for others to jump on board.

This is really good news but I notice that the order forms the basis for the year's financial expectations so is no change from guidance. It's more about proving the product. If Biom can take a nice percentage of the US coffee pod marfket it will be huge.

Haha!

Sorry for the double post. Slow updates.

Double post. Slow update :-D

@PVX233 - absolutley correct. @PPE - not at volume. @TLWilliams - Not cadmium free.

It is what it is and that's why we can buy NANO at 17p. If Samsung have achieved cadmium free volume through skull duggery I won't be complaining at Nanoco's management. They will be a victim of fraud. It will be very interesting to see what Samsung's defence is. They may well have been able to do it. If so, fair play to them.

@PVX233 - absolutley correct. @PPE - not at volume. @TLWilliams - not cadmium free.

It is what it is and that's why you can buy NANO at 17p. None of the other product lines are going to come to fruition for a long time so this court case is all we've got. If cadmium free at volume has been achieved by Samsung through sculduggery then I won't be complaining at Nanoco management. They're a victim of fraud. It will be very interesting to see what Samsung's defence is. I wouldn't rule out them showing they can do it. Just have to see if they can.

I'm sure they do amerloque. Since patents are public NANO would no doubt have had their scientists review Samsung's patent portfolio to make sure that the processes they define or imply wouldn't result in the same tell tale signs indiciating use of NANO's proprietary tech.

It's not quite as simple as that TLWilliams. Nanoco's USP is that it's product is cadmium free. Nanosys's success over Nanoco's is really a story about how the market, with the exception of Samsung, haven't embraced that. Nanosys's performance is all based on cadmium dots.

Cadmium based dots perform better and are cheaper. Until there is either a step change in quality and/or price of cadmium free ones or the environmental legislation we've all been waiting so long for comes into force it's unlikely to change IMO.