Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

"@BBD: Please leave Trump out of these discussions."
Why? It's relevant, because there is a similarity in the discrepancy between valuations. The difference is that Samsung have understated the value twice. Once, when placing an unacceptably low bid for the entire company, and then presumably an even lower valuation presented to this court.

The fact that no-one else bid for Nanoco might be brought up, as a justification, reasoning that their 'bid' valuation was arguably too high, but the discrepancy tells against them, like it did against Weisellman?

This places Samsung in Trump world, where the stated value of assets varies wildly, depending on the context.

Frankly, it beggars belief that anyone is able to find anything negative in that RNS. Expectations are higher than they were before, is the only real takeaway, and that applies to CFQDs, not just sensors. The only way you could view that as worrying is if your personal expectations were already dramatically higher than the consensus

I want whatever crisplex was drinking

No Hawi, I cannot explain that to you, and I don't really see it's relevance to the level of settlement or award (if any), which was the point being warned about. Nobody knows what that level will be, but Samsung's attitude is obviously very different to ours and hard to understand - NGR gave a convincing insight into their point of view, a rare and useful thing on this board, imo. As to Gilstrap, he may guide towards an unusually high award, every case should be judged on it's merits, but Samsung probably see it as unlikely, and something they are willing to gamble on. Stats may be on your side, but I have never thought Samsung are interested in settling, despite the obvious logic and justness of it. I have seen absolutely nothing from them to change my mind about that, quite the opposite, but again, nobody knows, it's possible.

Brilliant post by NGR1616, giving an instructive corrective to anyone getting ahead of themselves. I hope Gilstrap seeks to discourage Samsung's cynical outlook by making the consequences of their actions more punitive, but that is probably not realistic or likely.

How about a quadruple whammy Katastrophicforcats? Samsung forced to pay gargantuan wonga, also forced to take a license at Nanoco's chosen rates, EU finally enforces cadmium ban nudging a few of Samsung's rivals to also take out licenses, then ST Micro go live with sensor production. Too much to ask?

I agree Nanonano, Toshiba almost certainly using cadmium. Their new models could challenge Samsung, they seem to make basic QD technology mainstream by making it affordable to a much broader market. I hope this puts more pressure on the EU to enforce it's cadmium ban, because the thin excuses which were being made about it have surely evaporated into nothing over recent months.

When you say "have been able" to find the supplier of Toshiba QD panels, did you mean "haven't" Ecclescake? The article doesn't seem to mention it. Their Q5AD model seems to be creating waves:
https://www.techadvisor.com/article/920790/toshiba-qled-tv-you-can-actually-afford.html

" it sometimes seems as if face (I nearly said honour, but that word would be out of place) determines their course."
I've thought that since the start of the case Barbon, although I have characterised it as a gambling mentality, but there certainly seems to be more than just commercial logic at play, despite what some posters assume.

I've been here since 2016, I don't want an award, I just want the jury to award Nanoco an unfeasibly large amount of dollars, and Samsung management to receive a "Theiving Gits of the decade" award.

What 'opinion' is the market currently expressing through the share price level? Perhaps it's anticipating a probable win, but a relatively low award or settlement, say about $250m? Mr market is pretty shrewd, but often completely wrong.

"My guess is cadmium based on the prices. Frustrated with the EU if that's the case."

Wasn't it 2018 when the ban on cadmium was originally supposed to kick in? Surprising the EU STILL allows it's citizens to be poisoned when an alternative is not only available, it's being used commercially

"It's just an article and it's quoted BT exactly once"
RevoltingPeasant, who spotted the item, accurately gave the TWO quotes from BT in the first post in this thread. They are from a small bit at the bottom of page 19 in the printed edition (you may be able to access it thru Pressreader, via your local library, but RP gave all the relevant details, there's nothing more to see).

The second quote sounds nothing like anything we've ever heard from Tenner before. The Telegraph employed Boris Johnson after he had been sacked by the Times for making up quotes, so Hawi's questioning of their accuracy is entirely credible. The editing is clearly flawed, leaving that unqualified "premium" hanging in the air. It looks like they have just hacked out words from the piece until it fits into a tiny gap they needed to fill.

I agree we're making too much of it, but it does at least put the lie to the person who insulted "us lot" for not agreeing with his peculiar and wrong opinion that BTs cliched phrase about the "uncertainty" of the trial was what we should be concentrating on.

"if Samsung came along and offered a significant premium"
What does BT mean by a "significant premium"? More than $500m? The comment could be read to imply that they have not yet made any offer

Thanks NGR1616, I think the post you remembered so well was deleted before I read it. Your interpretation of it is novel, to say the least. Anyway, no ban this time, just a strategic retreat.

Nigwits insistent point about BTs "uncertainty" over the trial, and his condescending repetition that "you lot" were missing this "fact" because of "your" stupidity or bias was disproved again, in the most forthright manner, by yesterday's RNS. All Tenner was saying was that we should not be complacent, i.e. stating the obvious, so pretending there was some hidden message in his straightforward words was utterly misguided and clueless

How appropriate that he is leaving at the mention of Germany. Again (previously banned for a Hitler comparison). Funny thing is, he basically agrees with everyone here on the basic fact that Nanoco is a good investment, so all the peculiar nonsense was just mind games. Expect a return under a different name. Again.

"Mintz and the funder must both be very nearly convinced of a win in Texas next month."
Yes, we all knew that already, that's what BT has been guiding and what other posters have understood for a long time. That's why emphasising, over and over the selective "uncertainty" quote was unbalanced, misleading and frankly weird, you go with the whole set of information, not a tiny half sentence which you have deliberately misinterpreted and assigned undue importance. Anyone with experience, of any kind, should know that.

Note in the latest RNS "Expanding our action at this time reflects our confidence in the case in the US"
BT did not repeat your favourite quote about uncertainty, which every poster here acknowledges anyway, because all trials are uncertain, otherwise there would be no need for them. Instead BT chose once again to highlight the strength of the case. What could be the reason for that, do you think?

"How can anyone with no experience of IP Law or commercial litigation have a valid opinion on such a complex case?"

Has LSE introduced a new rule about who is allowed to have an opinion? Basing your case on a single clause from BT, taken out of context, doesn't require any such experience to reject, only common sense. BT also said: "We are in a strong position – the net result of rulings on the pre-trial conference motions preserve all of Nanoco’s damages models and their expert testimony, as well as the full testimony of our technical expert Dr Brandi Cossairt.

“The earlier rejection of Samsung’s motion to re-open a Markman definition was also an important finding in Nanoco’s favour. Being able to selectively choose the claims to bring to trial on the back of the emphatic win at PTAB has also undoubtedly added to this strength.”

You choose to selectively ignore all of that, and place massive emphasis on a routine warning not to get complacent: hardly sensible or rational behaviour.

By the way, Samsung TV sales are looking relatively healthy:
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?mp=1&np=1&ud=20220823000191

People who have been banned before ought to have learned their lesson about what is acceptable, and surely ought to have a little more humility, but it is extremely difficult for a leopard to change it's dots.

It's good to see BT retaining his level headed caution while outlining the multiple significant reasons for optimism. I think Feeks offers one of the best analyses on the board, free of arrogant certainties, condescension and insults, and highlighting the most telling issues. I like his range of possible outcomes from a trial of $200m-$1Bn+, it is sensible and realistic, imo. After 5 years of obstinate deceit, I doubt Samsung will finally do the right thing and settle, but it's obviously possible. Given the failure of Samsung's central defence and the wholesale rejection of nearly all their technical "opinions", a settlement probably now requires a figure considerably higher than the bottom of that range, and the SP seems to reflect that.

We should, like BT, retain some caution, but it is difficult.