We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Well, mixed feelings on that. It really is a low figure but still a significant sum to NANO. Represents daylight robbery by Samsung overall. If I were them I'd crack on trying to steal the sensor tech asap. Certainly no deterrant to do so here.
My view is Samsung will have the monopoly on QLED unfortunately but it's not cut and dried. There's room for niche products and other players to try to compete on performance and price. Maybe some of those products will take off and produce a decent display business for NANO. Micro LED much less sure. The technology is at a much earlier stage. It might not involve QDs at all. Some interesting stuff coming out of these people for example - https://www.porotech.com/
That's one side of the story and not quite as I remember it at the time. No company should accept a loan, go quiet and meet no repayments. Then plead surprise and put the blame off on the creditor when the loan's called in. I agree it was a bit of a strange one. I don't think it's usual for local councils to be supporting start ups with finance anyway and 2012 was at the peak of Osbourne's draconian local authority finding cuts.
Comment on Bloomberg yesterday to the effect that copper prices short term will depend on whether the China reopening takes off or not as port warehouses there are full of copper right now. Doesn't appear to be affecting the price at the moment though.
Also, NANO will be supplying the sensing material lobo not licensing. If the settlement was to set a licensing cost precedent the different model for production would allow a clean break from said precedent.
Worth noting as well down the line that if these sensors find their way in cars, smartphones and any number of other devices there would be a much bigger market than TVs.
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.
@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.
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.