Member Info for ddubya

Thanks Hawi. From the link within -- Interesting that SONY is making a similar QD OLED offering but can't reveal the screen manufacturer. Rumours suggest that Samsung is providing it. If true, I wonder where that places SONY if PTAB rules against Samsung? Needing another supplier I hope.

I feel sure NIGDM is right, as NANO long ago unwound its exclusive marketing agreement with Dow Chemicals.

Dow proved to be too expensive and some of us even suspected it might also have been in bed with Samsung? The high cost of CFQD demanded by Dow gave Samsung the pretext it required to secure CFQD from another source and to its complete amazement (and ours) discovered that sister company Hansol had been developing a non-core business in CFQD ideally suited to display. How very fortunate, as the chances of that happening must be very slim indeed, given their expertise is logistics and paper production - lol.

I will second all of that BeContrarian. Thank you to everyone and have a great Christmas.

Just a leaving thought. The share price was over 40p before the Apple cancellation. We now have a ‘free’ £17m factory and every prospect of new orders so the future looks promising, even if we ignore that PTAB decision in May and the November court hearing.

MW. We all know a rights issue could raise funds at a far higher value than £0.01 per share so why are you giving such a large % the business away for relatively little?

TEK has said in the past that Salt Me was simply proof of concept, to show what could be achieved with its low sodium salt. Recent distribution announcements demonstrate that it now wants to add a good brand to its growing g list of companies.
What I love about TEK is that it has a great success rate in terms of bringing products to market. I do have the feeling it is meeting deal resistance from conservative food manufacturers though, who don't want to risk putting anyway in their already successful foodstuffs. That will change in the positive, as will the SP, just a matter of when.

I expect that DMTR will do very well from here. however, existing shareholders are going to be so heavily diluted in the restructure by the enormous discount offered to select chums (on an already basement SP) that they will benefit little from any upside.

My opinion - legitimised robbery.

Lobo's legal experience and insight is really helpful. The most recent PTAB publication suggested that the board got what it needed from Samsung's 'expert' witness but my guess is that it does not provide the non chemist (and perhaps not Lobo either) with enough information to offer a view on what it means for the strength of NANO's case?

For my money Mr Green appeared to concede that a molecular cluster exists which seems good but also that it could change in the process , without providing evidence that it had - so more like conjecture than testimony?

I think you might be saying Samsung is not directly linked to the global shutter in the first embedded article Nano, a view that could well be correct? Is that your thinking?

Could be Nanonano but the article on the global shutter does contain the heading ‘1.62µm Global Shutter Quantum Dot Image Sensor Optimized for Near and Shortwave Infrared’

Admittedly, it does not take much to confuse me but I read it as including QD of a lead sulphide variety.

Hi Basscadet. We would surely have preferred to see these sensors being developed with NANO.

If our patents are being used there and PTAB confirms their validity, we may have another income stream. Whichever way, it suggests that Samsung has adopted NANO tech and also used its considerable resources to advanced it for non display applications, something that has always been a concern. NANO May have another legal case to pursue but (Alleged) Crime does appear to pay. Let’s hope the Texan Court can provided adequate compensation.

BELL is in a different place to TEK. It is further ahead in its development and selling a product that is in high demand. The balance of TEK companies (bar Lucyd and the SaltMe brand) have great potential but as yet not as much to show in the way of sales. Greater potential in TEK I say but I hold both for different reasons. Much more to come from TEK I expect and in the relatively near future too.

In order to maximise growth potential it is essential to motivate the management team (and key staff too) to encourage them to deliver their best, most particularly when their skill sets are in high demand elsewhere.

I have no problem with sharing reward, provided it is aligned to shareholder value. I am not a fan of automatic annual share option handouts, unless they are linked to performance.

Having said that, renewed interest in restructuring the rewards is a positive sign for me. It suggests the ‘cake’ is perceived as holding value, and I am looking forward to my small slice of it. 2022 might just be the year we have been waiting for.

It’s fear of the the ‘NU’ virus in South Africa is it not. There is no concept of whether that highly mutated version will outdo the current vaccines but risk of it is a concern, hence carnage almost everywhere.

BELL has suffered less though and might jump upwards and further faster. We need these units without a COVID resurgence, and even more with one.

Frost bar. ME stated that they were looking for a ‘share’ of the $16bn (less marketing costs) which NANO estimated Samsung had made from QD enabled sets. That relied upon a less well used compensation model based on profits made, and not that of the traditional licence fee that would have been due.

I expect marketing fees includes all costs of sales incurred such as for retailers, which at a guess could be around 40% of the total.

How much and if any depends both on the court judgement and the basis of compensation selected of course but some outcomes are just attractive whilst others would place it alongside the UK’s larger players.

“ A discounted cash settlement pre-trial …would have to be considered.”

Certain it would be considered if offered Matty.

My take is that if PTAB goes the way of NANO in May 22, we shall be in control and there is little incentive for Mintz to enter into detailed settlement negotiations on behalf of NANO. That is unless, Samsung can convince them of its desire to settle fairly close to top end $ expectations. Why allow yourselves to be distracted from the job of preparing for trial a few months later and nailing the case for 'wilful' use of registered patents? Mintz will of course keep the door open but I am sure they would be justifiably sceptical of any Samsung desire to negotiate.

My money is on a settlement on or shortly before trial commencement, possibly on terms that require payment straight away. I also see potential for a settlement that exceeds $1b by some margin but as with all litigation, it is unwise to assume a positive outcome.

No doubt a Samsung contract would have funded a great deal of R&D and we could have used the funds to stay well ahead of the competition. In that sense I am 100% behind your view BeC. Would delight in a punitive settlement against Samsung which would go some way to making good the loss suffered.

Ironically, if Samsung had not adopted CFQD technology, there may never have been a payday for NANO, at least not in the Display sector.

We might presently be close to winning many 100’ s of £m in damages and also other income streams from IR sensors.

We will have waited too long for the outcome but if you have averaged down, particularly as low as 7p then those who did might end up being strangely thankful to Samsung for their increased gains.

Still really hoping PTAB and the courts use them as an example and stiff them, including for damages. If any big business can rape, steal and profit from small business, no one should have anything to do with them, no matter what they offer.
At least that is my personal view.

My guess is that BTB is just a bit fed up with ongoing losses and unconvinced of a turnaround. Who can blame him but I think the tide has turned in our favour.

Very much agree BBD. Samsung now knows QD inside out, with NANO’s assistance, although the Directors probably never wanted to pay for the knowledge transfer. Looks like wilful misunderstanding to me too. As judge Gilstrap has said, PTAB judges are exceptionally smart, even by the standards of judges and will reach the right decision.

Thanks for taking the time to look through the documents Lobo.

I would have been a little concerned had you seen some merit in the Samsung argument.

NANO, it’s TP backers and experts, NANO and Mintz all appear convinced that Samsung has been serving up a fabrication. My personal view is that having done so, they need to keep banging the same message out, hoping someone can be convinced of their lie. Difficult for them to retract.

It is never clear until the ruling is made of course but I can’t see anyone in PTAB falling for the Samsung story.