Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Mention of Softbank makes one wish they were an investor here. You'd like to think solid quantum materials patents and expertise were worth a punt for visionaries?

Quite true HeresHopin, I've witnessed them going badly wrong shorting XP Power as they soared (then later missing a golden shorting opportunity on the same stock), so pinches of salt all round

Fun fact: LOAM have sold about 6.3% from the initial settlement announcement up to last Friday. Purely coincidentally, that's puts them right on schedule to sell the lot in 30 days.

For those claiming LOAM still hold 15%, it was already less than that, and todays RNS says 13.69%

What I mean is, we'll get something from Samsung in lieu of royalties, and obtaining substantial upfront revenue for the product, for the first time ever, is a massive step forward, regardless of the label you put on the revenue. We will surely still, emphatically, own the patents, and we are the ONLY company who have the tech to make CFQDs, which now mainstream and commercial. If BT really allows Samsung to be in a position to take that away from us, then he can be criticised, but just assuming that has happened seems weird and unnatural, he is almost certainly doing the exact opposite.

The display market obviously consists of more than just TVs and FAR more than just Samsung. We'll get something from Samsung, unless you think BT will be settling for nothing. Likewise, any settlement will have scope limits, otherwise why the need for negotiations beyond the form sheet. BT is hardly likely to just sign away the entire business after years of litigation and after all he has said about prospects in the display market. Unless you are suggesting he has taken a bribe, FH, I can't see how you arrive at your bizarre conclusion

Before litigation was announced, many here had written off the display business completely, after years of expectation of selling lucrative licenses repeatedly and depressingly turned to dust. After settlement, Nanoco's position in the display market will arguably be the most promising it has ever been. Some might say that is "transformational"?

Congratulations Alas_Smith, you're timing was excellent! I've held for decades, and I can't remember the SP EVER rising 50% so quickly before. For a relatively large company, it must be quite unusual, but they did start from a surprisingly low base. I guess the SP action is driven largely by Chinese politics, but it's hard to tell these days.

GirlyBrianT It's obvious you are infatuated with BT, or "our beloved CEO" as you lovingly call him. Did you choose your name to indicate your jealously over all his other girlfriends (as in the Sophia George song which Troublesome referenced) or was it to simply to express your wish to be one of them? Just "curious"

One poster here has set up an account purely to denigrate Brian Tenner, even naming their account to insult him. That's a level of spite and vitriolic commitment beyond the call of duty. Did BT sleep with his wife? I think we need answers, or failing that, speculative rumours

Thanks for the clarification Feeks. Thanks also for months of excellent posts btw - appreciated. The fact that everyone is doing mental gymnastics to make sense of the announcements says it all. I don't think you were "ignoring information" as bluerill asserts - the alleged involvement of the FCA seems like yet more speculation, rather than established fact. If the FCA was involved, you'd think they would have approved any mandatory RNS for quality, and it's hard to see the second one passing any such test. Clarity has been a hallmark of BTs regime, so we are searching for an explanation for the opaqueness, but it could just be stress and and time constraints, while he grapples with important nuances of the settlement

Surely you're not really still hoping for a "separate licence deal for the future use of N's patents" Feeks? I think even the compromised RNS manages to rule that out? Is it likely Samsung came offering some complicated hybrid model? Probably simpler than A, B, or C - just a one-off $$$ figure (123m?) covering everything, bar details like scope and spin

It's interesting that there has been another surge in orders from the healthcare sector - I'm guessing that's from Chinese customers. Contrary to the panic expressed by a poster just a couple of quarters ago, it's been a fantastic year overall, and next year might be even better with China starting to open up again and other issues apparently easing. We probably need an acceptable resolution of the court case to see this really flying again, imo, but it's on the right track again under this management, with a sound strategies pointing to significant further growth

Whatever paper calculations are done, you ought to allow for a "discount", I think that has actually been stated, although it's another vague, undefined term. Something to do with early payment for notional future value probably: still vague! . You should also admit that we are unlikely to get what we think is fair, it will be a compromise with Samsung's position. Some people think they are being objective, while selectively leaving out crucial points like these without realising it. No doubt I have missed others.

One thing to bear in mind, whatever your interpretation of the RNS, is that BT is all over the issues we are discussing, he's not some mug off the street, nor are his advisors - agreeing to a settlement means it must be somewhere in the ballpark of what is acceptable. To my mind that means a small but useful sum, including handy upfront cash for future use limited to the current technology. Our rights to sell the display tech to anyone else remain, and likely enhanced by this case. Our right to litigate against other probable infringers also intact. Our patents relating to further development of the process intact. Definitely maybe, as they (probably) say in Runcorn.

Worth remembering that Jay Y. Lee, head of Samsung, was once jailed for bribing the SK govt.

Are the SK government tacitly encouraging theft of IP? Timing is suspicious. Expect zero response from UK politicians, our university spin-offs are left to fight giant international criminals without their support

@Hawi - when you say you didn't understand 'my' interpretation, that indicates that I haven't been clear. I didn't give one interpretation, I contrasted two different ones, highlighting the specific parts of the RNS which the two latch onto. I have listened to the webcast and read the text again, but they still do not offer any other interpretations of the RNS, as far as I can see. I tend to favour 'your' interpretation, but both are credible, imo, based on the wording of the RNS

Looked at from another angle: a "successful jury trial outcome" would have left us with a payout judgement over past US sales, and in position to negotiate over future international sales. Does BT's cut off point for expectations cover only the former, or include the latter? Hard to tell from the wording of the RNS

I think the crux of it, Feeks, is how you interpret the phrase "the range of expectations for a successful jury trial outcome as previously guided by the Company." Most initially took that to mean what you are saying, something like $200m, because of the mention of the trial, which excluded future royalties. Hawi and others have argued, convincingly, that previous guidance DEFINITELY included future value as a major component.

So how you interpret the RNS probably depends on the relative weight you give to "trial outcome" and "previously guided". As an attempted clarification, the RNS was at the lower end of expectations

Most excellent and informative summary by Hawi, pulling together a lot of threads, jogging memories and framing the current SP action interestingly. Not sure we are much nearer to a consensus range, but it's blown off some of the mist, and we all needed that!

The raw numbers are so huge relative to the MCAP, that tiny differences in calculation would equate to large likely SP movements. The range of uncertainty generates frustration, but it's a nice problem to have?

Presumably negotiations started based on a surmountable gap in respective calculations, including the difficult and important issue of future value. If so, maybe they are now negotiating secondary issues like the technical scope of the deal, ongoing relationship protocol, saving face, presentation etc. Are we down to 23 days left for that now?

While being clear about the facts, we should factor in compromise, and the court will be stressing that heavily, to both sides. The optimal outcome probably falls short of "fair value", but hopefully not as short as the current SP anticipates?