Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

"I'm disrupting this board far more effectively than Nanoco have disrupted the display market"
Nano own the patents and have forced the biggest player into negotiating terms, seems like a pretty successful disruption by any standards, your egotistical posts, on the other hand are merely something to mock: hate them or ignore them, nobody likes them.

One thing which doesn't seem to be factored into the current SP is the prospect of co-operation with Samsung on future products. Settlement would acknowledge Nanoco as a small but highly credible player in the burgeoning nanomaterials market, including the disputed QD process, but much more than just that. From being at war with Samsung, we could potentially be moving into a new era where they are placing orders for other materials.

"I guess there is a lesson for many of us here. If someone says or writes something ambiguous and we aren't sure what is meant ... we should probably ask for clarrification rather than unilaterally assume one or other meaning."

More concise lessons: 1 when something is ambiguous, don't deny it, 2 Don't write ambiguously

"that's all you need to think on."
aye, based on your slanted assumptions, but following the actual details released, mkt participants will evaluate:
- are Nano now more credible as an ongoing concern, or less?
- is the balance sheet better or worse than expected following RNS-ageddon
'appen as like

Actually, Marketscreener are out-of-date, as LO now down to second place in the holders chart with 12.16%.

Apologies if this has already been posted. According to Marketscreener, Hamoodi still has the same position he adopted in July '22, when the SP was about 35p:
https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/NANOCO-GROUP-PLC-5273194/company/
An interesting contrast with LO

So we should mark those words as BS too, like yesterdays, is that what you mean?

Which of your words FH "I'm retiring from the board" from yesterday, or some other ones?

@Tm58 You claimed some posts yesterday talked about exclusive licenses for Samsung, but you forgot to mention that that discussion thread, explicitly, unanimously RULED IT OUT. So, what exactly is your argument with that discussion or it's conclusion? The point of the discussion, which you seem to have skimmed with no understanding, was consider the negotiations currently taking place, assuming that a number was suggested up front as the basis of a deal. The discussion wasn't just about "exclusive use" as you falsely claim, it highlighted the fact that the settlement is not just about a wad of cash, but also about Nanoco's future in the display market. The discussion also highlighted the fact that the settlement is likely to include entities other than just Nanoco and Samsung, therefore likely to be some type of hybrid non-exclusive deal. You ignored all of this, seemingly incapable of even understanding the discussion you complained about? Hope this makes it clearer for you, but why just go back and read the posts properly, what's the point of misrepresenting them?

"FY22 year-end cash was reported at £13.1mln. Due to investment in doctor training, Creo is expected by us to need £15-20mln in further funding during 2023 ". OK, so slightly lower cash-burn than last year, but still more than we have available. Then there is 2024. Looks like we have a funding gap of something like £30M to make it to profitability in 2025?

Despite this, they currently value the company at £100m, compared to £36m MCAP

@Eccles By a non-exclusive deal, I take it you mean no "subsidiary companies" involved, but effectively included anyway due to existing arrangements? Samsung Display covered by the same principle of exclusive supply? It probably amounts to the same thing, practically. I think you, me and Gigawitt are more or less on the same page. If we're close to the truth, Nano are in good shape

Hansol " enjoys an uplift from additional requirements for QD TV materials."

I'm sure everyone here is very happy for them. No hard feelings, eh?

"The Samsung settlement only works if Samsung have an exclusive agreement or control over Hansol."

The term "exclusive", in licensing, technically means what Gigawatt said: the licensee gains control over the IP and the licensor effectively relinquishes it. Not to be confused with the looser general meaning of the word. A non-exclusive deal would allow Samsung to only use it (i.e. not Hansol), a "co-exclusive" deal would allow a specified group usage, but leave the licensor in overall control.

But yes, for patent peace, Samsung need the ability to continue selling their product, Nanoco need the ability to sell theirs, so Hansol, a company which pretends it is independent of Samsung, and not involved with the case, would need to be included, along with others, in a "co-exclusive" deal of some sort. We hope!

"An exclusive licence would prevent prevent Nanoco selling more licences for the same patents. "
True, I think what we are talking about is sometimes known as "co-exclusive": Hansol, SD, the whole chaebol

"non-exclusive licence with terms that protect a limited list of entities connected to Samsung."
OK, well that sounds more like an exclusive license than a non-exclusive one. The word "license" tends to connote the royalties based model which Nanoco attempts to sell, so potentially confusing, but I guess it doesn't matter what the agreement is called.

After Samsung tried to rip off a Seoul university professor, and lost in court, they subsequently sponsored his university. Is there a chance that Samsung will notice that Nanoco are actually useful to their business and behave slightly less criminally, following a settlement?

I agree Gigawitt, and to me it could be the most crucial part of the negotiations for Nanoco's long term progress. BT may have accepted a low-ish number in order to secure future business prospects, but not so low that it ruins the value of the products. I wasn't sure if you were saying the basis of the settlement would be a license, or just the VALUE of such a license, but it seems like we both envisage somewhere inbetween, a certain set of rights, but not unlimited, and an agreement rather than an official license.

"The way I think this will be calculated is going to be the going rate (quantum meruit) for a one-off, global, non exclusive licence."

To be clear, such a licence would include allowing Samsung to grant licenses to other entities. That would leave Samsung effectively joint owners of the patents, but in an overwhelming marketing position to monetize them?

"You rely on the identification of enemies on the right-wing"
Funny FH, because that's exactly what you have done in previous posts. I think they call that "projection", but I can't recall where I've seen it before

"anything above 18p is profit "
That assertion lacks credibility imo, they bought a large chunk at 18p, some below that price, and probably a few above it too. AFAIK, we don't know their average price, although very likely it is well below current SP levels. By "high settlement" you presumably mean a large one-off amount. So if it's a "low settlement" are you expecting them to be doing the opposite, i.e. buying, or just holding? Their decision may equally depend upon where they think the settlement leaves Nanoco in the display marketplace as an ongoing concern.

Taking the 5 latest guesses: NGR1616 £10m-£20m
Scampthedog £35-50 million
pumpky $250 million
Compass007 circa £250m
HenryHistorian $500 million

Convert them all to dollars using 1.23 conversion rate, using the middle point where there are ranges, then averaging the total of all of them, gives a consensus number of $226m

Bear in mind, the number is only part of any settlement, and not necessarily the most important part for the SP.