Member Info for ddubya

@Troublesome. Perhaps worth holding a little longer? We might be disappointed in ourselves if it comes good immediately after our exit.

BT said that whilst is was a difficult decision to accept the settlement it was the right thing to do. That can only mean either that BT is incompetent and needs to go, or there are a few golden eggs in the pipeline, which I take to mean the IR sensors, 2D product and/or electroluminescence?

I agree Intrusive, very likely to be 2D and that is where NANO’s future sits. I can’t see that we can realistically compete with Samsung for CFQD having donated our IP.

Just as well we have another string on our fiddle, or we would probably be wound up now.

I shall need to wait for several more years to realise a return at all, which does not please me, since I know that I first backed winning technology 14 years ago. Had there not been dishonesty from Samsung, I would likely have retired and be messaging from my Spanish Villa about the great dividends we were receiving.

You would think NANO might have been able to negotiate a role as second supplier as part of the settlement but that it did not adds to the weakness shown in negotiations.

2D and sensors etc look like the way forward but that will take time and it looks like almost all value from pioneering the seeding process to manufacture heavy metal free CFQD has effectively been stolen.

My personal crusade to never by a Samsung product will continue.

@Intrusive. Quite possible, and if Nanosys was the real ‘Hansol’, Samsung no longer has any use for them, since it is able to produce molecular seeded CFQD by itself.

Good morning Kooba.

Nanosys is now part of Shoei so by all accounts it is a takeover dressed up as a supply agreement.

The above done not allay concern that Nanosys might be a transgressor attempting to exit without penalty, so it would be nice if BT could update us on the ‘claim construction’ work NANO claims to be undertaking and in particular to confirm or deny whether Nanosys is amongst them.

I have not been able to find any article that mentions $consideration. Anyone else had any luck?

I wonder if Shoei placed a bid for NANO a couple of years back, when our business was up for sale?

Unless I am wrong, the truth may soon be outed. If Nanosys has been using our IP (and has not invented a new manufacturing method) Shoei will already have negotiated some form of licence with NANO, prior to purchase. Otherwise, Nanosys seem to be in the clear.

Nanosys has always said it uses a hot extrusion method to produce CFQD in bulk but no doubt BT and NANO know if the patented molecular seeding process was used or not. If it has been, we don’t want Nanosys evading its obligations and exiting with the benefit, so I hope NANO has this under control?

@Maxi - Yes the article does refer to Asset sale.

The matter would have been considered as part of the DD process though, so there may be an opportunity to recover from Nanosys, if it has transgressed.

@Intrusive. If there is no RNS in the next few days, it likely means Nanosys has been using legitimate means to manufacture its CFQD.

A licence would offer us another income stream from the largest offender bar Samsung, so I rather hope it has been a transgressor.

IF Nanosys has been using our patented methods to make CFQD (we don’t know) it might be relevant to know whether Shoei has purchased all liabilities from Nanosys as well as assets, or left them with the vendor? If the latter we can likely still pursue Nanosys for damages, and they will have the cash.

Either way, in the above circumstances, if Shoei wants to make CFQD (?) it would still need a licence from NANO, which would be great news. There is no way a sale would complete without the Due Diligence establishing legitimacy over the manufacturing methods.

If a licensing deal had been struck, I expect BT would want to let us know relatively soon.

Nothing wrong in having a short term view Omar.

This certainly feels like a good step forward in terms of how Microsalt can be used, although I look forward to hearing this patent has been granted.

My take is that the product reduces baking/production time by savings in the leavening process but not in terms of ‘oven’ time?

Any time saving is good but had it represented a sizeable saving I am sure we would already be saying so.

@Nanogeddon. LOAM was very quick to fix a ‘performance’ related element to their loan notes and also to terminate Henry Turcan’s appointment as a NED. They also negotiated ann option to appoint another NED if and when they buy back in. Now you see me and now you don’t - so we know who has been wearing the trousers in this business relationship.

Not saying I have not been grateful to LOAM for their support in the past but it looks to me like they knew the outcome and became creative with the ways in which money could be made.

@TGTD. The fact that Hamoodi is going to court indicates the FCA did not consider LOAM’s actions merited investigation.

If Hamoodi does win, rather than simply having the FCA open an investigation, it would be appropriate for the government to establish why it did not initially pursue an investigation.

I do wonder how long this action will take to reach its conclusion but at least NANO will not be on the hook to fund this particular case.

@NGR "Correct. That’s why the whole settlement was $150m" Why do you keep referring to the settlement as being $150m, as if the patent sale is not an unconnected commercial transaction?

The 'settlement' applies only to the amount paid in respect of the legal action. There is a loose argument that says Samsung paid for valueless patents just to structure the deal in a tax efficient manner but I find it difficult to buy that story, partly because NANO retained a licence to these patents and also because I am sure Samsung was selective about the patents it purchased and in time will create added value from them too.

@NGR "If they didn’t sell the IP do you think they’d have settled?"

That's an interesting question NGR - I would certainly hope not as we netted only £4m excluding the IP sale, and that is likely no one's idea of 'fair value' outside of the NANO Board.

On another point, it could be linked to the and tax treatment of the overall deal structure but we managed to pay all legal fees from the first instalment when there is an argument they should also have been paid over two instalments.

Except that it was not a $150m settlement NGR. Over half of that sum was received from the sale of IP.

If it did go 'tits up' I would be happy to confirm the Board has been spinning the yarn for many years.