Member Info for bonzoful

Intrusivethought
I understand your view. But cannot reconcile it with the article by intellectual property rights experts which Hawi drew attention to earlier today. Entitled "How are damages calculated in patent infringement cases" it does not seem to be consistent with your view. You may of course br right in which case they would I think, be wrong.

Had Samsung done a deal before using CFQD Dow would probably have ended up supplying the dots from the CFQD production line they built adjacent to Samsung in S Korea under licence from Nanoco. I forget the licence fee payable by Dow to Nanoco but I think we knew it at the time. I would expect Samsung to pitch for a licence fee at that level and for Nanoco to seek something a little higher as Dow are no longer involved.

Good article. While ME suggested there were a number of ways damages might be assessed this article says:
United States: American courts use lost profits and the failure to collect a reasonable fee from a licensee to calculate a damages award.
The profit Samsung has made on QLED TV appears irrelevant. The number of TVs sold will help work out how much CFQD Samsung has made. A quess at a reasonable licence fee needs to be made. From which an estimate of the licence fees that should have been paid to Nanoco can be derived. I am happy to leave it to the East Texas Court to do the sums.

I ordered a Renault Megane electric yesterday and made sure the version I put my name down for had driver monitoring assistance. There was no mention of Qualcomm or Snapdragon in the marketing material presented to me let alone Seeing Machines. The youtube video review on the car I sought out mentioned the advantages of being able to access Google maps and Spotify on the car infotainment system. When I search on the Web for the car model and Qualcomm I find confirmation the car does have Snapdragon. Renault's explanation is that car companies are risk averse and they wanted a partner that could handle large scale software systems and upgrades reliably.
I suspect that is why we are not seeing the sort of prominence given to Seeing Machines that many on here would like. My cash, as a car buyer, will I hope reach Renault by the end of the year and royalties should begin to build up for Seeing Machines next year.

Even better. So joint submission to court by 31 May and court considers on 2 June. With luck a date for the trial will be set which would help to concentrate minds at Samsung. Out of court settlement a week or two before the trial date likely but not certain.

Very helpful. As Samsung go slow we can expect them to take the 45 days available to them from 17 May before informing the court of their position, on 1 July.

As I see it there are two good reasons to believe Nanoco offers exceptional value at current levels. And one bad one.
First, the prospects of a settlement worth £620m or more after costs look strong. That's worth £2 a share. Second, the prospects of a commercial contract by the end of this year look strong. The first is likely to cover costs and lead to more. With low marginal costs and capacity to produce £100m a year, the prospects of a profit of £10m a year in 2-3 years are excellent. A modest P/E of 15 would be worth a further 50p a share. Only one of these two likely outcomes is needed to make the current share price look attractive.
The bad reason for believing in Nanoco is that someone out there thinks it worth casting doubt on the prospects regardless of the evidence. I infer they are paid by shorters and while shorts above 0.5 per cent have been closed it seems likely shorts below that level remain. Once they are closed I expect those supporting their position to move on.

The driver monitoring scheme being supported come mostly from SEE in partnership with Qualcom. No rush as the monitoring has to be built first. But worth, in my view, keeping an eye on. Mentioned once before. I shall refrain from further mentions before attracting understandabke complaint.

I don't accept your depiction of my position. The board used to be useful. BTB will be delighted you and others are shaping their contributions in response to his own .

I filter BTB having concluded sometime ago that this was a case not of rhyming slang but of hiding in plain sight. He is what he says he is.

BTB. Samuel Johnson said a man who wrote other than for money was a fool. I don't think you are a fool. You have been a consistent advocate of selling Nanoco and announced you have done so on at least two occassions. Which suits the shorters. As they close their position one or two new subscribers turn up to cheer you on. I doubt you get paid much. Your task here will end in the next few weeks. Farewell and the luck you deserve. I have no doubt the longterm holders on here are in as good a position as they have been for a decade.

Brilliant news that BYD signed up: to my mind a substantial derisking of SEE.

I am not sure Nanoco has mentioned driver monitoring systems as a use for QD before. Colin Barnden comments authoritativel on DMS and this is an extract from a Colin Barnden linkedin post from yesterday reinforcing the suspicion the mystery customer is STMicroelectronics.

"At #CES we saw the emergence of the first dedicated DMS/OMS #ASIC, the #OAX4600 from OMNIVISION. This implies image processing in the mirror is moving along the ASIC route, the most suitable method for embedding high-performance processing with optimized power consumption. Omnivision's competitors in automotive image sensors and image signal processing (#ISP) are onsemi, STMicroelectronics and Sony. "

It may be of interest to some that Nanoco, when presenting its interim results yesterday, identified driver monitoring systems as an opportunity for its quantum dots. QDs expand sensor range into infra red, overcomes sunlight issues, penetrate atmospheric conditions and reduce power needs. Nanoco is currently scaling up to start fulfilling a commercial order expected from a European customer, thought to be ST Microelectronics. Speculative. DYOR.

Or win the sort of contract(s) for which you would need the staff currently being recruited.

Some institution is buying. Yesterday I topped up with 36936 shares. And 40 seconds later a second purchase for 36936 shares went through on an Automatic purchase at a marginally higher price. Conceivably a shorter reducing its exposure.

Nonetheless, if and when Nanoco start to make a profit the shorters will have to buy back 2 per cent of Nanocos shares. Which suggests the price will rise sharply. Given the confidence Nanoco are showing by recruiting, plus the strength of their case in the East Texas, things have not looked as good for a long time.

I don't want to labour the point. But who will be selling most cars by 2025: Ford and GM or NIO and BYD? I am encouraged that SEE are getting work in China but that seems to be from partnerships made elsewhere rather than the indigenous Chines companies who are the world's largest producers of electric cars. I back SEE to win. But there is still much work for them to do.

But the general consensus on this board is for a share price way ahead of the market price. I am a fan of SEE and heavily committed. But believe the future is in electric vehicles in which Chinese manufacturers are likely to fare well. The focus of comment on this board is on internal combustion engine (ICE) cars which are fading into history as quickly as the horse and cart did in the early twentieth century. DMS will be widespread by 2025. But in electric cars and they may not be made by the ICE manufacturers of recent decades. SEE will win out eventually on merit supported by its data and the future work of its employees. But there is turbulence ahead. It will take time for cash to flood in. And no need for anyone to buy SEE until the work has been done and the cash is flowing in.

It took four months between the last two orders from STMicro (or whoever else is the European Buyer). So I expect a move to commercial production in four months or a new cash raise. It is not clear to me we have cash to last to October.