Member Info for ddubya

We should not do politics here BtB but whilst I agree there has been a failure of diplomacy in Ukraine going back years, I also find myself agreeing with NigWit for just about the first time.

Yanukovych was a Duma installed puppet and also a dictator. Just how were the people of Ukraine people supposed to convert their country to a real democracy? Unsurprisingly, dictatorships do not publish roadmaps for that, so for all our imperfections, I know what system I prefer.

There were no valid grounds to invade Ukraine either, which simply is not a military threat to Russia. My view is that Putin is worried for his own future and fears Ukraine is becoming a success, which his own subjects are very aware of.

I am sure that some other people will see it differently of course?

That said, looking forward to some PTAB output. Fingers crossed and GLA.

Yes Hawi. QD Sensors are ideal additions to smart missiles and drones, so whilst not the most noble of uses, our wares may be in increasing demand for defence.

It certainly seems to perform many of the tricks we have been led to believe that NANO’s products offer Nanonano, such as face recognition and use in smartphones. A production ramp up in H2 2022 fits too, so it would be great if true.

Available for testing they say but hopefully there is already a buyer planning to include these in their next model year product?

One of the final slides in the NANO demonstrative state Samsung’s argument is an example of “…impermissible hindsight reconstruction” just as we have always suspected and for me sims it up rather well. It’s not over until it is over of course but my take of the presentation is confirmation that Samsung has been bullying its junior partner, to take what it wants from it. There is another good example of that happening elsewhere and right now too.

The share price has fluctuated quite a bit in recent days and weeks and I would not be surprised to see more of the same in the run up to PTAB news.

Nerves of steel required here but after nearly 12 years, I shall certainly not be parting with my shares any time soon.

The first Salarius deal in Mexico and hopefully just one of many to come - looking even more promising here.
GLA

Being profitable enough to reinvest is the first step so all eyes on the ST Micro (Apple replacement) product.

Samsung has effectively starved us of cash and R&D for six years, whilst it presses on developing our IP further.

Still some way to go but success in PTAB would be a massive next step. Fingers crossed and not too long to go for that PTAB result.

I agree that Samsung will spin it out as long as possible Nanonano but in the best case scenario that all or most patents are confirmed valid, Samsung will either need to make a healthy offer to settle pre trial, or go ahead with and hope the judge does not slap them for 3X damages. The court may not permit leave to appeal against the judgement either, although I imagine they could still appeal the amount of any settlement/award.

The way I look at it we will not see full value in the SP until legal action is done and dusted but if we win at PTAB it should go well north of current values, and with the right decisions in our favour, plus sensor news, it could become a dripping roast of good news.

Basscadet. Yes trial streamlined if PTAB won but still many decisions to be made in court. Mike E expressed the view years ago that proving wilful use of NANO patents would be easy, so I suspect they have a few gems to reveal in court, such as correspondence asking for NANO’s help to make CFQD.

Hi Basscadet. I believe the position is that PTAB can only determine the validity, or otherwise, of the patents already granted to NANO.

Whether Samsung used NANO IP at all and if they did how much they should pay in damages are matters for the court to decide.

However, if Samsung tries to introduce muttering to effect the patents don’t have validity (it has agreed not to) they could be quickly set aside and disregarded by the court.

When Morbox mentioned ‘Demonstratives’ I had the same question Feeks and took look on Google. Apparently, they are the presentation (probably PowerPoint slides) that each team puts to the hearing in the Oral presentation. They are intended to present the strengths of their argument but specifically should not introduce ‘new’ evidence. They should only articulate and support the facts and documentation presented in earlier submissions to the hearing.

Trying to introduce new information at this late stage is typically perceived as weakness, so if Samsung is struggling to prove its case it sounds positive.

Why would a professional witness need more time to provide an opinion he should have formed before accepting the role. Might reflect desperation, changing the story to suit the circumstances?

Thanks for posting a link to Equity Rebellion crisplex99.

I see they have only 34 subscribers but the article is well written and conveys similar sentiment to that posted here. Nice to see someone betting on 500% before Xmas and also pointing to a healthy business aside from the Samsung case too. Getting positive airtime is what we need atm.

BtB - keep the faith at least until the year end. I am sure you will be rewarded for doing so.

That feels like a very good trading update and points the way to more success with new models.

Thanks for posting Nanonano. Crossairt’s testimony looks very convincing.

In her opinion the teachings Samsung are relying upon either don’t work at all, don’t form molecular clusters, or would be discounted as ways forward by those ‘skilled in the art’ with plans to make a CFQD. Throughout she explains that Samsung simply does not provide adequate explanation of how they would join all the teachings they claim are so obvious to make CFQD and overcome many associated difficulties that exist with each techniques presented. In short, her recommendation is that patents are upheld and I get the feeling she thinks Samsung is just spinning a yarn. Hope so, since Samsung surely loses if PTAB agree with Crossairt.

Yes, she is our professional witness and so we expect her to fall on our side but as a layman her testimony looks rather compelling. I would be interested to hear the wires of others and will read the other document later.

Almost certainly the way Shadow. Closely following the tried and tested recipe that has crept into the market over the last 12 years to rob the early investors.

You would think the FCA could see through these thinly veiled scams but apparently not!

Better luck elsewhere everyone.

Unfortunately 2Phevs there was only a very slender chance the motions would not be carried. The Board did manage to count the existing shareholder votes they could rely upon in their favour even if they were quite unable to add up the elections and subscription levels made. They got the selfish numbers right.

Viewed as exceptionally dishonest by many I am sure, and in my view it is and requires a change in the regulations.

We live in hope but not counting on success for the ‘against’ camp Dyam.

This placing very much presents the feeling it was born out of an exceptionally cozy relationship. We shall see if the SP drifts back to the placing price in the coming weeks but for the moment, it does not look very much like it will. Right now it means over 3 times the money for the new boys at the table.

If we had not been diluted so much our basic entitlements would look like a very good deal. Reality however is rather different.

Surely, no one would do something so underhand Bradley :)

Post raise it would not surprise me to see a consolidation of shares in large blocks, effectively booting out more small holders.

My 2.5 m shares are voting against 2PHEV, but I am sure it will make no difference, as they will have been sure of the numbers before embarking on this plan.

My personal view is that the directors know this has value, and unfortunately the system allows them to create the conditions to 'snatch' the lunch we have paid for at a cost next to zero. I no longer put new money into cash hungry firms for this reason but had hoped DMTR might not suffer the same fate. Having said that I will take up the basic entitlement to limit damage.

My stupidity in investing here does not mean that directors actions are not shameful, and in my opinion they have acted dishonestly and not in the interests of shareholders. No idea why we have buyers at 0.3, when our new controllers get in so much lower.

Well done Midas. Wish it were a 15 bagger for me too but I do have a good return, which is more than I can say for a number of my other selections. Must not grumble and lots more yet to come from BELL I suspect.