Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

SP has doubled in 26 days. Repeat!

Good points Amerloque. I wonder if any helpful technical details will emerge from the court case. Misinformation about the "cadmium free" status of various parties could come under scrutiny, for example.

PP my username is BlahBlahDoh, not Song Su-hyun. There are many possible reasons why Samsung haven't issued any immediate response, I only mentioned it because you might expect a swift rebuttal if the journalist's take is accurate. As far as we know QD Vision's patents covered different niches to Nanocos, rather than anything like an alternative scalable seeding process, but Samsung presumably chose them and not Nanoco for some reason. Whether that is relevant to their defence is anyone's guess, but Su-hyun seems to think so.

Don't think this has been posted yet? A fishy headline from the Daily Fail:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-8013493/Chip-maker-Nanoco-launches-legal-battle-against-Samsung-allegedly-stealing-technology.html

The point of the post was to demonstrate that other views of the situation are possible beyond inflationary one-sided fantasies. The court will hear both sides. As far as that Korean journalist knows, Samsung dabbled with Nanoco's tech but then chose to go a different route with viable alternatives which were paid for. The implication is that Samsung thought about buying Nanoco but chose QD vision instead, and that allowed them to forge their own QD production platform with help from Nanosys. If so, it should be relatively easy to prove that in court. No reaction from Samsung yet though.

"Samsung acquired the US-based QD Vision in late 2016 ahead of QLED commercialization. QD Vision was another quantum dot material company, and it sold all its intellectual property to Samsung.

At the time, Samsung was selling its SUHD TVs with its own cadmium-free quantum dot technology sourced in house from the Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology and produced by Hansol Chemical. It was collaborating with California-based Nanosys to further develop its quantum dot technology."

"Nanoco named Samsung Display as one of the defendants in the suit. Samsung Display, however, was not involved in manufacturing the QLED screens."

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200218000663

The patents seem to be core IP dating back 15 years or more, mainly relating to the seeding process, but also film, which is a nice kick in the teeth for big S. All of them are applied for in the US, but only some of them in the UK, which may be one reason for the location?

https://patents.google.com/patent/US7588828B2/en
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7803423B2/en?oq=US7803423
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7867557B2/en?oq=US7867557
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8524365B2/en?oq=US8524365
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9680068B2/en?oq=US9%2c680%2c068

Interesting that Nanoco have not applied for a temporary restraining order, but a permanent injunction against five separate Samsung companies. Wilful infringement can cost up to three times the damages resulting from the act of infringement, if proven. Still find it odd that we were discussing this last week, and Gonebroke's bombshell post appeared as part of that discussion, blowing it completely out of the water!

Several patents listed, all display. Opening price should be interesting.

I don't remember Nanosys actually apologising, maybe they issued a "clarification"? They have certainly continued to claim 100% cadmium free, without qualification. From their website: "Our Heavy Metal Free Quantum Dots contain zero heavy metals such as Cadmium or Lead." Surely the Nanoco price fell largely because they lost the vital supply contract though, not just because of Nanosys's claim? Being good enough and competitively priced turned out to be more successful than superior IP?

It is interesting the infringement case doesn't seem to include either Nanosys or Hansol: could it feasibly be something unrelated to display, given Nanoco and Samsung's wide patent breadth?

Quiet down everyone, let me speak!
https://www.sharecast.com/news/news-and-announcements/airtel-africa-raises-38m-through-ipo-of-malawi-subsidiary--7315244.html

Money raised is only about 1% of AAFs market cap. No indication of what the money will be used for, but since this was a forced sale due to Malawi policy, they'll potentially use it for small acquisitions.

In India, AAFs parent company are having an interesting argument with the government, but that's a whole nother story.

No Griffiths buying this week, so maybe someone else is taking a position.
Or perhaps Market Makers are sniffing blue?

Mike's beliefs about the IP haven't been a reliable guide in the past. If there was a real issue over infringement, more than ten months of discussion should have resulted in something by now, either an escalation or an agreement: most likely it has been forgotten or sidelined. Samsung bought QD vision and have an extensive relationship with Nanosys, but they have conspicuously ignored Nanoco. The only convincing reason for a change now is fear that the Chinese are suddenly eager to buy the IP, but even that reason is somewhat undermined by the fact that none of them have so much as invested in a license.

Stating odds at around 90% is meaningless if you leave "success" undefined. Success for many here would be achieving viability as an independent company.

hVivo was spun out of St Mary's University, a research university on the Mile End Road, Whitechapel.
I believe that is where the prof teaches, and presumably where the quarantine unit is.

LavanDERt

"maybe they are holding back to take us out that bit cheaper. "
That implies low bids then? The lack of action, neither licensing nor bidding until prompted, doesn't SUGGEST that the technology is particularly important to the Chinese. If the EU ban on cadmium is ever finally imposed (rather than ridiculous endless rolling exemptions), that seems like an odd date to suddenly start doing something about it. A license would give them business certainty now, rather than gambling "all or nothing" on a bid. More optimistically, it's possible due diligence could result in licensing rather than bids, and maybe that is what this whole exercise is really about.

If the Chinese want Nanoco's technology so badly, then why haven't any of them simply licensed it?
If nothing else this would be insurance against losing a bidding war.
The October 2019 cadmium ban, which seems to be operating on the uncertainty principle, was months ago.

"**** , the tense police are out.
No comma after increased !!"

Hardly just a tense issue. Judge people by what they do, rather than what they say they're gonna do.
And the tense police want a word with you for impersonating an officer:
https://getitwriteonline.com/articles/oxford-comma/

Reason 3 has already occurred I think Jimzi? The underlying reason there is CFs heavy, increased, and locked-in financial commitment. Also, reason 1a - the developing genomic databases, and reason 5 - the excuse to bandy about the word "zoonotic".

Can't believe we've fallen into the trap of discussing the RNS count, it opens up a whole new vista of troll territory...

The Zoonotic nature of these viruses is fascinating - bats, camels, monkeys.
Fortunately we are gradually destroying the environments where all these pests lurk... oh wait