Member Info for ddubya

Hi BtB. The vanishing partners issue has been a perennial problem but we are led to believe that ST Micro was also involved in the Apple deal and it returned to reestablish the development of IR sensors with NANO following expiry of the exclusivity period. For that reason, my take is that we can have more confidence that ST Micro is a believer and is serious about developing product further. Certainly hope so.

Botbot. Have you been buying again :)

If Samsung’s timing is intended to sway local opinion in their favour, then as some suggest, we should be delighted they are concerned enough to make such a significant announcement. They know the stakes are high, and I very much doubt there is genuine intent to build a QD plant in Texas. So Samsung.

Runcorn is the obvious home for a $10bn investment.

Samsung does not need to buy NANO to make this go away, just the relevant patents. However, NANO might still need them for its work in sensors, so in that scenario, there would need to be some other accommodation, which allows NANO to use them free of license costs? I am sure this sort of solution has been discussed already but Samsung has probably not been prepared to dig deep in its pockets.

Soz. Merck, not Dow for the second link.

Just been looking at some old articles on the excellent OLED-Info site, and reminded myself of some of the information circulating in 2014. Two articles caught my eye, each of which highlight Dow's involvement with Samsung. It probably is not relevant to the litigation where Samsung obtained the know how, they will lose if the courts consider they have used it, but in my view, there is a distinct possibility Dow was the conduit for revealing NANO's secrets.

Dow collaborates with Samsung to develop CFQD - did Samsung collect CFQD production secrets from that arrangement?
https://www.oled-info.com/samsung-may-introduce-cadmium-free-quantum-dot-lcd-tvs-2015

Merck is developing its own QD-like technology, which they call Quantum Rods - did Samsung borrow NANOCO's Nano Rod technology from Dow? If so, there could be further litigation, or a larger settlement to avoid it?
https://www.oled-info.com/merck-korea-quantum-dots-unlike-oleds-no-game-changer

It is good to see focus on the persistent nature of Samsung's approach (alleged) theft of IP Feeks. Same old formulas of ignoring an NDA too. In NANO's case they seem to have additionally required a few years collaboration to replicate the CFQD, which casts doubt over claims of 'obviousness' and 'prior art '.

Samsung has sold what is arguably the best range of affordable TV's ever and in huge numbers using NANO IP, so if we look like being winners, we can expect a large settlement.

The legal system needs to remind Samsung what decent business practice looks like. If they want to sell to the West, they should not be permitted to treat it like the Wild West.

Avoiding further delay is a big step forward for NANO.

It does not alter the merits of NANO’s case of course, so we shall need to place our trust in the Texan and US judicial system and the Markman hearing. Infinitely more favourable than relying on Samsung to do the right thing.

If the hearing goes in NANO’s favour, I have the feeling our TP funders will want to extract maximum value, so the process may run for quite some time yet but should be well worth the effort.

Thanks for the heads up Hawi.

Unfortunately, I need to agree that last performance suggests Nanosys might be the supplier. However, if it was necessary to eat humble pie, I would be more than happy to do so, and console myself with a glass or two of champagne. I would probably wait until 7.30am though, so as not to be accused of early drinking. Either way, at least Samsung knows what it feels like to have its QNED name pinched.

Possibly so as it would remove the ‘real’ innovator (and potential competitor) from the frame. However, now there is a TP funder the rights to litigate live on with them, so Samsung cannot unhook itself.

Quite so Feeks. The notion that a loss making start up would have all the time and money needed to launch a legal case as soon as it became aware of Samsung's dishonesty seems as ridiculous as a bank robber saying you can't convict me as it all happened a few years back. Samsung says nothing about the money it has made and I am confident Samsung calculated NANO would 'go under' and need never pay anything. Thanks mainly to Lombard Odier, and I suspect the strength of NANO's case that has not been allowed to happen.

These are certainly testing times BtB but keep your chin up and continue posting good sense.

Had LG been using NANO CFQD, the market would likely have got wind of that by now, so best not to make assumptions as you say - we all know what that does.

I am hoping ST Micro may be able to offer some good cheer soon though?

Absolutely agree with your sentiment Nanonano, although the Court will still need to apply the law, which seeks to protect everyone’s rights and interests. If it takes longer so be it but Samsung remains true to form and is playing the game it more or less invented.

Each to their own view Basscadet, but if we believe NANO, they presented a CFQD solution to Samsung, entered into an agreement to prepare them for production, only to find out that Samsung has ‘borrowed’ their ideas but does not feel at all obliged to buy a licence.

Samsung TVs have become hugely popular and profitable using CFQD but Samsung is now doing its level best to place a stay on legal proceedings, which it forced NANO to initiate. Is this not enough to qualify as frustration of NANO’s Display initiative?

I find LG’s use of the QNED label interesting as that is how Samsung intended to brand its rod shaped CFQD product. Does this label signify that Samsung is now selling QNED mini LED to LG, or is it possible their thunder has been stolen by LG?

The Korean Times article does suggest this is LGs proprietary technology, which raises hope that LG might be using using NANO/Merck product. However, I find it difficult to set positive expectations given that Samsung’s seems to have been able to delay and/or frustrate every NANO Display initiative to date. If a major such as LG were using product from NANO or one of its partners you would think an RNS would be forthcoming sometime soon.

Good counsel Nanonano. And the research element of the ST Micro contract is due to complete around year end, so there is potential for news on that front quite soon?

Yes. If good sense we’re in play, there might have been different and more beneficial decisions, including on RoHS, and tighter control over the antics of the Gangnam boys.

Certainly it feels a lot like that, although when the need for change (and credibility of the system) is obvious, the pendulum can change direction. Ironically, the States and Texas in particular is tougher on IP infringement than anywhere else, which is why everyone is filing cases there.

The whole system really requires International agreement and reform, including government refusal to deal with the corrupt. There is legislation e.g. Anti-bribery and corruption, which government could use to prevent granting of contracts to the corrupt - which they seem to forget about as and when it suits.

Clearly, each case will be treated according to its own merits Basscadet but the point I am making is a different one, around how legal system discourages persistent bad behaviour. Samsung has yet to be proven guilty in the NANO case of course.