Member Info for BeContrarian

Forgive me but I had the results presentation in the diary for tomorrow. So what was today’s?

Given my own personal investment journey, it can hardly be overstated how reassuring it is to find the picture exactly as the CEO said it would be, with a couple of extra positive sprinkles, rather than bluster and blarney and a few nasty shocks in the results. This is a massive year for Tenner and he knows it.
Solid and confident RNS in my view.

Nano, no chance. Injunction could well be in the offing in Germany well before then, should Nano hold tight in this trial. So they won’t have the luxury of endless delay IMO

I urge every investor in Nanoco to read this article. It’s old, but absolutely fascinating, giving a really good insight into how Samsung operate. Don’t be fooled by the title, it goes way beyond the Apple Samsung dispute. You won’t have to work too hard to find parallels with our current situation:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war

We are all adults here Steak and you’re entitled to do as you wish with your own money. You have your reasons and if they’re valid to you then they are valid end of.
I remember at the time you raised the point of validity, and it is a fair one. I just don’t see Nanoco’s legal team giving it anywhere near enough airtime to give it enough traction in the jury’s mind.
Think about it objectively, if you are a lay juror, given a clear narrative of collaboration and then all of a sudden it magically disappears, are told of Samsung’s interest in purchasing apparently redundant IP, are shown ‘that email’ and what followed. Are you going to be fully receptive to arguments that bring into question validity? I’m not so sure…best story wins and I don’t think Samsung’s story does anywhere near enough to address the grievous accusations being levelled at them, other than a cynical last minute patent review that’s likely to be quite technical in nature. I read the docket of Samsung’s expert who will be challenging validity and she confused the hell out of me, a person with a keen interest in this case and a half decent grasp of science.
I’ll admit I do have some nerves about the case, I don’t think anyone can say it’s a total slam dunk when a jury is concerned, but I do also think the chances of an outright loss are slim.

So it seems that much of what was protected via NDA will remain so, which I’m sure our lawyers would’ve expected to be the case. Yes speaking from our biased perspective we would of course want all the facts in court, but if a Texas court basically overrules a clause within an NDA then the whole concept of NDAs is thrown into doubt. That’s not a precedent that’s going to be set here no matter how badly we want it.
Regardless, just laying out the time narrative and the fact NDAs were entered into is a smoking gun in itself, and should prove persuasive to a jury. I’m not too sore about buyout figures being known or not because it is far far short of what we are going after in court anyway, so whilst the mooted buyout figure helps establish a clear narrative of Samsung wanting to buy IP they apparently didn’t steal, I’m not sure we would even want to plant that sort of low figure in a jury’s mind?
Just my thoughts

These intra day RNS are not good for my blood pressure

NGR I don't get the vitriol and think that Sammy has responded to your posts on their merits.

I'm not so sure Samsung think they can win. It'll boil down to a 'is the juice worth the squeeze' scenario. I.e is the outside chance of a win, or low damages, enough to offset the extra hurt of a high damages and/or a multiplier? There are so many chips in play that it'll ultimately boil down to someone making a judgment call somewhere. It could pay off, it could end up costing them hundreds of millions vs settling now. But it's more about the numbers relative to the chances of success, rather than Samsung proceeding based solely on conviction of a win. There's no way Samsung's legal counsel would allow their clients to indulge in such delusions.

Quick Nano say you are surprised there hasn’t been a multi billion dollar settlement ;) haha

RNS right on cue Nanonano haha

Had another nibble at 37p. I really thought my buying was done but that 37p psychologically feels like a bottom as that’s the level of support we had off of PTAB. Since then we’ve had improved financial outlook and are way closer to news, so it’s a no brainer for me

Hmm we’re quickly venturing down a semantics rabbit hole here. As this is a Nano board I have no desire to further this discussion and I’ve already outlined a host of reasons as to why these factors make the housing market anything but a free market between just buyers and sellers.

This is a Nano board but if I may:
1) Henry if you’re fixed in for 10 years I wouldn’t be in a rush to pay it off. Stick the money in a savings account and you’ll likely earn more interest than your fixed rate interest will charge.
2) Damay it’s anything but a free market! The BOE money printer, government incentives, and mafia building cos sitting on massive land piles are Co conspirators in the great property Ponzi scheme…which is all unravelling as we speak.

Always found these commission free platforms to be a bit of a red herring. It’s not commission free at all, they work on the spread and on big purchases it costs a damn site more than your £9.95 trading commission.

Halifax ain’t cheap but the prices quoted are always very good. My buys often go down as sells on the ticker the price is that good.

Sigh. You’ve discounted continued litigation in other territories and potential injunctive action in Germany from your calculations.

It’s so important to consider the wider context into which this US trial fits. It doesn’t stand alone! These shift the ‘mean average’ as you call it considerably towards favouring settlement, and I would fully expect Nano to be playing hard ball.

I’m not surprised to see it quiet here. We are waiting for the next piece of the puzzle, which could be potentially massive…or a new trial date.

A couple of points I have been pondering about: I think that in terms of short to medium term shareholder value, a trial suits us best. The reason I say that is because I doubt any settlement will allow for actual figures to be published. My guess is there would be a lot of turbulence until results are published, and finding true value nigh on impossible. In terms of the trial outcome, upon hopeful success, we get a figure and of course the chance for that multiplier down the line. But at least a trial offers a lot of clarity around figures and so the SP will be a true reflection of what’s gone on. A settlement could potentially leave us in murky waters for some time.

Another point just to pick up on is about this notion of settlement chances dwindling as time goes on. You don’t have to stay long with the thought of how complex a global settlement must be from a contractual point of view to understand that every day available to fine tune it would be fully utilised. More time doesn’t make it more likely, it’s a simple binary 50/50 yes no equation that stays that way until court commences. This concept of dwindling odds is simply a cognitive flaw based on flawed reasoning that each passing day is an opportunity lost, when it doesn’t work like that at all.

Just 200k shares changed hands today. Everyone is here for the big event and a bit of wider chaos isn’t going to change that.
Not long now!

Few frayed nerves here it would seem, falling SP naturally has that effect.
Important to remember there are very few companies that have proven themselves immune to the macroeconomic carnage going on, and another delay may have just made a few trader’s minds up to move on and perhaps come back another day.
The facts haven’t changed. If anything, I find it intriguing how they decide which trial proceeds and which one doesn’t, it’s all a little mysterious. I have my own opinions on that and am happy to add this afternoon.
People suggesting that settlement is off the table or that the prospect dwindles with time, is just amateur. I’ve said it before, you don’t pay the ferry man until it’s time to cross, and any extra time through delays will be utilised to fine tune an agreement if there is to be one. I admit there may be no agreement and am comfortable with either scenario.

I would be surprised if we don’t see some selling today. I was sorely tempted to add yesterday but got a feeling today will be a great buying op. Especially as Halifax have their commission offer running this afternoon!

I understand the natural caution that for some, the prospect of settlement seems remote or even totally impossible, especially given the sheer size of Samsung. However, the statistics, and the circumstances surrounding this case, simply do not support such a thesis. I would be very surprised if settlement discussions are still not being actively engaged in.
For me, the timing of the Germany litigation announcement seemed an interesting twist in the saga. It not only signalled that Nano is clearly demonstrating a preference for settlement (which has always been the case) but that it came only a day after the pre trial conference had concluded.
Now there are two scenarios in play as an explanation for that. Either Samsung showed no interest in settling and so the Germany move was an attempt to focus minds. Or, there have been settlement discussions but the two parties are too far apart, with the Germany move an attempt to bring Samsung closer to nano’s proposed figures.
Now to me, if Samsung had no intention of settling and that was clear to Nano, I don’t think they would’ve pursued the Germany route at that specific moment. There seems to be this perception that Samsung are pig headed and will fight to the bitter end, but to me the Germany litigation is hinting to me that Samsung are at the negotiating table, they just aren’t meeting Nano’s valuations at present.

Until our lawyers walk through the court room doors, I continue to see settlement as the outcome.