Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Thanks IP_man, so the burden of proof IS normally on the claimant, yet Nanoco say in their court submission, part 89 for example: "the burden of establishing that the product was not made by the process shall be on the Defendants, to the extent that they assert that it was not so made.". So just like I said, Nanoco are seeking to shift the burden of proof.

Also, Gonebroke was spot on with "substantial likelihood" and he deserves an apology for anyone doubting his word for no reason whatsoever.

Many thanks to balman for the link.

So do those who have accused us of making things up think that Nanoco are accepting the burden of proof, and claiming with certainty that they can demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt? If so, what is your recollection of the court submission, in terms of the burden of proof, assuming you actually read it.

No-one is disputing that Nanoco have evidence, or how likely it is that infringement occurred. All I said was "Nanoco themselves in the wording of their accusation don't claim to know for certain that Samsung have infringed". That doesn't mean Nanoco are uncertain of their case, it is merely that they don't claim to be able to demonstrate absolute proof, but instead seek to shift the burden of proof onto Samsung. Just an observation of fact, not really any reason for a whirlwind of defensive hysteria.

Failing to recollect the exact word, is completely different from invention. Discussion is difficult when people feel the need to make false accusations and then don't have the decency to apologise. I stand by my original point: Nanoco are seeking to shift the burden of proof onto Samsung, and the wording does not claim absolute certainty over infringement.

Thanks Gonebroke, so I didn't just invent it. In any case, no-one is disputing what the case is about, it's about the burden of proof. As I said in the first place, Nanoco are not claiming they can prove it, they use "substantial likelihood", rather than, say "beyond reasonable doubt" or "with absolute certainty". So the court needs to be sufficiently convinced about the likelihood in order to transfer the burden of proof.

Did you forget already PP, the document is now behind a paywall. Besides, I'm not the one falsely accusing people of inventing things.

It's a shame people didn't read the document carefully when it was freely available. When it comes to invention, I can't claim to being clever enough to make up such a tiny detail. If you really think I'm mistaken, I believe the site has a "free trial" offer, so you can check for yourself.

PP, you seem to be "wilfully" misunderstanding the point I was making. Nanoco did not state "we are CERTAIN they wilfully infringed and can prove it", they said the infringements are "LIKELY" and want the court to adopt the stance that Samsung have to prove they didn't infringe. Legal cases usually work the other way round, with the defendant innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof lying with the plaintiff.

Did we this one on Monday?
"Samsung said in a statement, “We are reviewing the patents cited by Nanoco Technologies and will respond to its claims.”
https://www.kitco.com/news/2020-02-17/Quantum-tech-company-Nanoco-files-patent-infringement-lawsuit-against-Samsung.html
More to come soon, presumably. The New York Times also wrote a piece on the court case on Monday, but it's behind a paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/02/17/technology/17reuters-nanoco-group-patent-samsung-elec.html

" Where did you invent that from have you actually read their legal claim?"

That's your invention, not mine PP, I was referring to the wording of their accusation as contained in the original court"complaint" document which Gonebroke provided a link to. Unfortunately that link has now changed, and the relevant document is behind a paywall: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/32355906/Nanoco_Technologies_Ltd_v_Samsung_Electronics_Co,_Ltd_et_al

My recollection is that it stated that after careful examination, and in the light of multiple exhibits, they think it is "likely" that Samsung infringed on their patents, and for that reason they insist the onus should be on Samsung to prove that they haven't.

The Kindle didn't omit the word "consistently" yesterday, must be an intermittent fault?

I don't think patent cases have any time limitations paolo111, and although someone suggested the chosen court has a reputation for quick decisions, it's likely to go on for years, including appeals. No date given for the start, as far as I know. Informed people seem to think it's a tactical move intended to focus minds on an out of court settlement, although it could also be seen as a last throw of the dice for struggling Nanoco, at least as far as the display market goes. If the case does go ahead, it could be interesting to hear Samsung's view, particularly their reason, or perhaps "justification" for why they rejected Nanaco's technology after a long hard look at it.

Yesterday I stated that RG's recent increase amounted to about £750K, yet today someone deliberately contradicted that saying "Richard Griffiths is consistently pumping in tens of millions into nanoco shares, as we've all just recently seen him do just recently"

That isn't a matter of opinion, an unkind person might say it's dishonest, disrespectful and misleading. The entire MCAP of Nanoco is a few tens of millions, RG's entire holding is less than 15% of that.

Thanks Amerloque, yes that is very much "of interest"! On the face of it, it shows those Korean journalists are probably on the wrong track if they see the QD patents as useful defence evidence. They held a collection of patents, so it's possible there was something else in there which Samsung found a use for, but it seems unlikely. Everyone following Nanoco has been surprised by Samsung's ability to shun Nanoco's technology, which was specifically aimed at the problem for years, and widely viewed as the technological leader, and somehow find a viable alternative method. Nanoco themselves in the wording of their accusation don't claim to know for certain that Samsung have infringed, only that they see it as likely. A lot will depend on whether the court accepts that view and puts the onus on Samsung to prove they haven't infringed.

Lombard have unwound their position a little bit more, but hilariously, the SP turned at exactly the same time they did, so they called it wrong yet again! Down below 1% now.

I'm holding on through what I suspect (or at least hope) are temporary pullbacks due to profit taking, and possibly overdone fears over the effects of the Coronavirus, which may well affect rivals more than XPP. With the new computer system fully operational, and a new website broadening the appeal of the online sales channel, hopefully there is more good news to come.

Richard Griffiths isn't a director of Nanoco, he's a very canny investor. The recent increase in holdings made by his group totalled about £750K at an average price around 16p. He went up from 12.96% of the whole company to currently 13.85%, leaping over Hargreaves Lansdown into second place on the Big Fat Shareholder list:
https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/investors/major-shareholders/

Well I guess you would know Gonebroke: it was you who broke the news about the infringement case on Saturday, long before the official announcement, in an Eskers-like no nonsense post. Boom! You shook the board. Nanu Nano!

Interesting that another Korean journalist brings up the QD Vision patents as if suggesting they offer a defence.
But Sang-Hoon Lee's silent disco continues, and it looks a bit silly.

The article also mentions that, on earth at least, the case is not yet a week old. Other planets seem to have shorter weeks?

The risk is no higher than it has always been, imo, it's a pure gamble on the technology, but the upside is potentially higher now in the case of a win, because IF wilful infringement is proven there is a high likelihood of punitive damages of up to three times the impairment. Very difficult to guestimate figures, but certainly more than if they'd just bought a license in the first place. Don't forget the big IF there though, and only gamble what you can afford to lose. Safer stocks are available!

Samsung account for nearly 33% of South Korea's main index, the KOSPI 200.
A bit big to be hiding behind the sofa.

"This story might even make a great movie--"The Samsung Syndrome"."

If Nanoco give them a haircut it'll be Samsung and Delilah?