Member Info for BeContrarian

A week today. Excited would be an understatement. Finally a chance for Nano to tell their story in full. In what is likely to be a technically complex case, the narrative and timeline of collaboration between Samsung and Nanoco will reverberate through the entire case. It’s going to be a nervy one for sure but relieved it’s finally here and that Nano have this golden opportunity for justice.

There is so much riding on this but it was the asymmetry that attracted me to this company. Such has been the scale of Samsung’s infringement that an overnight multibagger is a realistic proposition. A licensing deal to follow and we are talking SP in pounds not pence.

I’m sure I’m not alone in having everything crossed. There may be some nerves so let’s all be nice to one another.

Malcolm, from what I can see the forecast is due to improve considerably from Thursday, with temps hitting circa 16-20 degrees. So hopefully all will be well by trial day!

Just wanted to say merry Christmas to you all. Though we be small in number this is a special board populated by knowledgeable and passionate posters who are generous with their research and thoughts. Thank you.

Whilst 2022 hasn’t been a rip roaring year for the SP, it has been vital in terms of building the strong foundations we now sit on. Whether that leads to truly transformational news next year remains to be seen, but I don’t think Nano and their legal representatives have put a foot wrong. Tenner has steered the ship with clarity and I think his leadership has been a huge plus for the company - I am glad he will be in Texas to witness what will unfold there. With the trial so soon, let’s hope 2023 gets off to a flier.

Good luck to all and merry Christmas everyone!

You’ve changed your tune Kats!

NGR why do you have to get so personal? Ok so you view things differently to Sammy in terms of the case. But the constant digs make you come across as a bit bitter.

It’s a matter of days now til the event is upon us that we’ve been waiting years for. Let’s focus on that.

I see this from both sides.

My personal take is that the CEO being at the trial is largely symbolic, and I don’t really see, from a legal strategy point of view, how it makes any difference. It’s important to recognise our legal team are primed and ready for battle. Once the court case is up and running, they will be ‘in the zone’ and in full flow as a collective unit. Other than being there in person and receiving briefs of the day’s progress, I don’t see how BT figures in any of it in any truly meaningful way.

That said, besides any settlement sign offs etc, it just feels like the right thing that the CEO is there. It sends out a strong message, the right message, and I for one as a shareholder am supportive of him being there to see (hopefully) justice being done. As others have said, this could be a real watershed moment for the company. How right would it be for him to be quoted in the next RNS from the steps of a Texas courthouse.

Hawi, my guess is the order is going to be something of a moveable feast and he wants to give himself as much wiggle room as possible. The downside to the industry Nanoco operate in is very large supply chains and lots of scope for potential delay. I’m with Nanonano, I’m relaxed on timings so long as it happens. If it is the VR headset, as has been mooted, then I think it’s a fair assumption that it will happen. Of course a product being totally panned isn’t out of the question, but it is unlikely at this stage I feel.

Don’t let NGR see that post Bonzo. The one thing he hates more than being wrong is an Algo…

Agreed Nano. It’s been a great year for Nano I feel. Sure the SP hasn’t exactly gone bananas this year but everything feels very solid and our progress in the court case has been superb.
I like the idea of the trial being so early on in the new year. Here’s hoping it kick starts a truly transformative year for this company and its long suffering shareholders.
Not forgetting the trading update very soon. Could there be a nice little surprise between now and then?
I added just a wee bit more yesterday. With so little time left it could easily gap up at any minute.

Sigh. I shan’t venture any further down this cul de sac but it’s clear that you don’t understand the concept of algo trading if you think humans have anything to do with it once it is in play and actively trading! It’s either off or on. And when it’s on, it’s operating at many thousands of times faster than any human being could possibly fathom.

As to the idea of humans developing the algorithms in the first place, yes that’s obviously true but clearly a different topic of discussion! We are talking about algo trading not how algorithms are made and developed. So it’s not me be being ‘disingenuous’ by introducing a straw man argument…

NGR no they don’t. The whole point of algo trading is the computer being able to spot minutiae within the trading patterns, often within millionths of a second. The algo cannot work if humans ‘oversee’ it as you say and besides they are going way too fast for humans to do anything about it. In extreme cases you may have to disable the algo all together but more often than not it’s left to run its course.

I’m with Sammy on this one. No use trying to use the SP as a meaningful barometer of the prospects here. Important to remember that 60-75% of all transactions are executed by algorithms. So no human influence at all. I suspect there’s been a fair bit of that going on here.

So much of what’s happened in terms of short to medium term price action has been pure momentum trading (both up and down). I don’t buy kat’s narrative that there are this crowd of burnt PIs who got burned at 60p (that price was achieved for a grand total of 10 minutes so I think that was one algo selling to another). And if there were PIs involved, anyone buying around that higher price was likely going to wait for trial outcome regardless.

As I’ve said before this isn’t your typical LSE army pump and dump stock. There’s next to no buzz about Nano outside of our small group. So whilst it remains unprofitable and relatively obscure, the SP will languish in the absence of news.

Nano is the dictionary definition of a calculated risk. At the minute, to the casual observer, Nano doesn’t look very promising at all. IMO it’s actually a way better punt than the average oil casino stock waiting on drill results, which all seem to attract hordes of hapless PIs.
There’s so much that can be researched and so many statistics to benchmark the case against, especially for those with a legal background.
We’re like 1/10 on the ‘buzzometer’ which suits me fine as I keep trying to load pre trial. In just over a month things will look very different, one way or another.

I was really gunning for settlement pre trial at one point. I’m much more agnostic now.

Pre trail settlement will be nice as a bird in the hand etc.

But if we get a good win and big damages in Texas, all of a sudden the Overton Window shifts into a completely different league in terms of settlement figures that Samsung will need to be tabling much bigger offers to be taken seriously and avoid injunctions.

Of course the usual caveats in terms of there being a risk of losing in court etc etc. but I do think either route (pre vs post trial settlement) has it’s advantages

Well, it’s time for Samsung to cross the river now. Will they pay the ferry man and settle, or try and swim across?

All got very exciting all of a sudden.

Had to have a chuckle to myself at the court jester halfpenny who sold down a couple of days ago. Great timing mate!

Amazing RNS. Merry Christmas everyone!

Ah fair enough I shall defer to your better judgment in that case!

Well it was originally due for launch in 2022 so realistically we would’ve had visibility on that well before now. Factoring in time to actually manufacture scale up for launch etc we would have had actual orders, let alone visibility some while back I would have thought. The obvious caveat to that is if those in the supply line have for known that delay was likely for a while. But based on original timelines, like I say, it doesn’t marry.

There was a fair bit of reading the tea leaves in terms of the potential application that the STM order might be linked to. To me, the timelines for the VR headset didn’t marry in terms of order visibility vs when the product was originally planned to go to market.

Best to wait for guidance from the company I reckon.

Eccles I think it was that Samsung agreed to be bound by the PTAB decision for the purpose of the trial?