Member Info for Basscadet

With current macro conditions I think that's an absolutely fantastic update. Admittedly there's loads of uncertainty for H2 but with reduced CAPEX and increased demand IQE should make a decent profit for once.

I agree in a general sense Screenlearner but politics does affect Nanoco.

amerloque, I 100% agree with those examples of the Chinese leadership's mistreatment of their people and that Gorbachev was a great man (Reagan by the way was a terrible person). The left turn to Russia is bizarre though. Yeltsin was a disaster for the Russian people but he was an exercise in freedom and democracy. For a freedom loving American to advocate for a mass murdering dictator over him and claim to like Britain while wanting to build ties with someone who has used radioactive and chemical weapons on the streets of British towns is shocking. I hope I'm misreading your comment and apologise sincerely if I am. By the way, all those things about China are exactly what I was saying the world should be concentrating on but what Trump is preventing us from doing.

It's politics at it's worst practiced by the most incompetent government in my lifetime. British companies who do business with China might well suffer. It's got nothing to do with the pandemic. We need a US trade deal because we have put ourselves a Brexit induced state of desperation. They have a lunatic in charge who is using all the leverage at his disposal to bash China in at attempt to win re-election regardless of how damaging it is. We're caving to that pressure because we have to.

Working with and in China isn't a national security threat. There are simple ways to protect against digital spying. Things all major companies and government agencies have to do anyway such as using robust encryption. Decoupling from China will be immensely damaging. In the meantime we can't apply proper pressure on the real issues - IP theft, forced technology transfer and opening up on the economic side; and human rights.

I think this is a bad road to go down for all out investments TLWilliams but with intellectual ****raoches like Iain Dunca-Smith busily scurrying around on the backbenches it's one I fear we will travel down.

or 500

Happy with $550M :)

I can't see any alternatives to VCSELs. They're exceptionally well suited to what they do and made in their billions so very cheap. VCSELs emit a grid of tiny lasers. Maybe they can be enhanced with QDs.

Thanks Screenlearner. Concrete dates at last :-)

BtB, as ddubya says it was the out of the blue comment by the Deutsche Bank analyst at the presentation. Some of us asked at the time where the random name drop had come from. Looks like Deutsche might have leaked the name of NANO's new potential customer.

I'm sorry guys. My view of this is that Samsung are not unusual. A small company like NANO has to get big customers to grow but pretty much all large companies will try to rob them blind. There's no incentive for them not to while they can get away with lower costs from legal action than they can make in profit. It's a simple calculation. I'm not a fan of a litigious culture but we need to put some better protections around IP.

Sensible to urge caution about thinking Samsung can't win before we've even seen their response.

Combination of all that. It's taken a few years for QDTV sales to rack up and therefore make it economical to pursue the case, it would have taken a long time to collect enough evidence to be confident and it looks like NANO have been bending over backwards to do the right thing by Samsung. All of which bodes well for the case and a large payout.

Originally I thought the future license would be the big prize but realise now that the patents lapse in a year and the damages could be very significant. It would be really interesting to know if NANO are drawing line in the sand and saying, "You'd better work with us in the future. We've got patents covering dots on glass and self emmissive dots as well." Then the license would be the big prize again.

I could imagine the Dow factory being infiltrated by Samsung staff or Dow staff being hired by Samsung after the fact a la the Alphabet vs. Uber case.

Wouldn't NANO include Dow in the suit if there was any suggestion they were involved? There's no chance they were IMO. Dow obviously put a lot of effort building the plant but then their price was rebuffed by Samsung. They switched strategy to working further with Nanoco on improving quality before launching any products or looking for new licensees. Presumably they are still doing so.

Not necessarily kingsinbad. It was up and down below 10p before this whole process was announced. Happy if it goes back there again. Almost expect it to but maybe not now there is one massive holder at 15.5p. This was about going higher later.

Let me get this straight. Redmile achieved the threshold but didn't exercise their right to either purchase the rest of the stock or take the company private. Isn't that bonkers? They own 90% of the company but don't own the company. I suppose they managed to shakedown current shareholders to sell 40% for 15.5p which would have cost a lot more if they'd tried to buy on the open market.

Anyway, happy with this result.

I'm pleasantly surprised at the discussion around damages. I had in mind 20 to 40 million. Hundreds is obviously much better.

Well, wasn't the first closing date of the offer yesterday? We should hear something now as to whether they reached the 90%, it gets extended or they failed.

Thanks for the write ups guys.

Troublesome, " The lawsuit is likely to be served in early May and this step starts the more formal exchanges between the lawyers for the Plaintiff (Nanoco) and the Defendant (Samsung). " Surely this is the timetable of the court and nothing to do with NANO's financing.

Where did mention of ST MIcro come and why would they pay NANO for anything?

The lawsuit is filed. I believe 'serving' is when Samsung are officially notified by the court. At that point the clock on their reply will start ticking.

I think you are being a bit negative there ddubya.

Display, I'm with you. We have no commercially significant orders at the moment. Simply put, no one is putting NANOs dots in screens. As always though that could change at a moment's notice. All hope no plan there from an investment point of view.

However, the Merck negotiation is specifically mentioned elsewhere so for the new development contract for an existing customer to be the Merck renegotiation would be a bit disingenuous. It's a toss up but I'll go with it is a new thing.

The potential new purchase order is indeed the news. It's still being negotiated so they can't say either way whether it's significant. It doesn't need to be much to tide us over and might result in a growing commercial relationship.

I take mention of the litigation funding process as positive. All the claims of no win no fee and the Chinese will be queuing up to pay was pie in the sky. I notice that particular ramping crew has moved on now anyway.

The company is very much on life support but there are small reasons for optimism.