Member Info for ddubya

Thanks Morbox and I look forward to hearing any more detail.

PPE you don’t appear to recognise that for a number of reasons there is no CFQD market in Display outside of Samsung, at least not yet. Certainly, NANO put all its eggs in one basket and it should have been be making sales elsewhere, over and above Careware. It has been trying hard though, and secured several deals with large firms. It’s resource has been sapped pursuing promising projects, each of which has ended up in a dead end, smelling a bit odd - like rotten fish.

We cannot rule out the possibility of collusion and delay, to prevent NANO and the UK from controlling what is an exciting and huge new area of science.

Interesting article PVX and if NANO wins in E Texas, it could potentially bring a single case against Samsung to cover the balance of jurisdictions?

https://amp.ft.com/content/46d54b1d-dbad-43fe-8511-f356ac6e320a

NuCurrent is suing for “unlawful enrichment” and it also had Samsung sign a non-disclosure and strict confidentiality contract before revealing its technology in a visit to Korea.

I was very keen on the Samsung brand and spent a few £thousand on their products to the point of discovering their alleged games with NANO. Now, I doubt I would consider buying Korean let alone Samsung. Very damaging to the way the nation is perceived.

Good to see a further example of what appears to be the standard Samsung Operating model. Sorry for the US firm involved of course but it mirrors the treatment of NANO, and makes the possibility of an injunction more likely at some point.

Surely Tech firms will look elsewhere than Samsung now, as doing so means the almost certain loss of the IP created?

A Top Gilstrap Brother from another Mother.

I notice from that article that Samsung attempted Further delay by requesting a ‘Stay’ in proceedings but Judge Gilstrap has declined because the case is in an advanced stage and also because it would prejudice Solas, which has already suffered financially. Sounds familiar so I hope Judge G is not planning on retiring any time soon.

If we can persuade Judge Gilstrap to step aside Nige and get you in front of this case - we’re sorted.

Let’s hope no Court case is needed Nige, but I expect it can only be avoided if there are no legal points left to contest and everything is beyond doubt to NANO’s favour. I think that most unlikely but I would be so pleased it it were the case. Samsung would be held up as dishonest and ridiculed.

A trial may not take too long if NANO’s case is as sound as I suspect but it will take quite some time to reach the front of the queue. Meantime, there is little or no chance of settlement.

Nige. One of the patents alleged to have been infringed is that of ‘seeding’. Rather like the way a raindrop or ice is formed NANO uses a tiny nucleus around which a CFQD grows and it uses this method to produce large volume. Brilliantly simple but by its very nature it must surely be possible to see such evidence of this type of construction under an electron magnescope or other means.

By examining Samsung TV of different ages it will be possible to see how construction has altered over the years. And with the right evidence and professional witnesses, Samsung might be bang to rights. At least that is what I am hoping.

Think that about spot on Basscadet, although Samsung has already proven (using NANO tech) that CFQD quality Is amongst the very best in Display, including with Cadmium dots. It does cost more though.

NANO must achieve a breakthrough in sales, either in IR, or potentially Display, but it has a very poor record of securing a purchase order after the initial test batches. That is what must change ASAP.

LOAM will be acutely aware of thIs position and no doubt is doing what it can, including commitment of more funds at negligible discount.

I am hoping it is simply a matter of time but no news of any description from Merck does concern me. If an update could not be provided in reasonable course, Mike would have done better to say nothing at all specific to Merck.

That Nanosys has been far more successful than NANO is undeniable but it is also unsurprising. Samsung has been funding and supporting the non competing Nanosys yet allegedly deceiving and stealing from NANO, which operates In the same CF space, and hoped to work with Samsung as a partner.

Today's position reflects the position after a good 'mugging'. NANO is rather obviously not going to be in best of shape, but it lives on and has other strengths in IR, which Nanosys does not share. For me the litigation should not be our focus as we cannot predict how or when it will be resolved, or with any degree of accuracy.

Fortunes should be revived in the IR space and that's where my hope lives. So far it has proven to be as difficult a path to commercialisation as Display, and there are times do I wonder if better marketing skills are needed but if ST Micro (or the silent Merck) can produce orders this share could turn around in short order and cement NANO as one of the World leaders in sensor development.

If NANO wins anything over $1bn Many of us will be very comfortable indeed, although it is just conjecture.

A more realistic prospect (but still conjecture) might be the doubling of the share price through a large new IR order. I would certainly be delighted with that whilst the Samsung suit plays out.

The above figure has crept into conversation recently, I think because it is 3 times the $14bn that ME says Samsung has made in additional profit.

Is it just me (and one or two others) that think that number is a misnomer? The 3X rule applies to damages calculated by reference to the lost licence fees, and only where both wilful infringement is demonstrated and the judge feels It is justified.

The cap on profit based damages would I believe be $14bn (less marketing costs) and the likely Reference value very much lower than that. Anything over £500m damages (net) would be life changing for many of us, so keeping our heads out of the clouds I imagine that something between £400m and £1bn is achievable if NANO wins.

Know what you mean SL and as normal, it will take quite some time to learn what Mike means - probably during the Court case, if indeed it has wider significance?

We need some positive news on orders soon to stop these daily erosions in share value, which have crept in recently.

You have highlighted the "will not go unnoticed" phrase before SL and I agree it is an odd comment which might have more meaning but quite what? Who will notice, competitors, governments or the public. I would not be surprised if NANO has some really strong and clear evidence of wilful infringement that they can bring to court, which in the fullness of time will be a source of deep embarrassment for Samsung.

If Mintz Levin win that would be the time to ask them (or a UK fitm) if they are open to managing a class action on behalf of shareholders? Sound far fetched but Botbot might not mind subbing us if we see £2 per share.

Amerloque. You are perhaps too kind!

Proving it is another thing altogether, but in my personal view Samsung has deliberately and consistently moved to deny NANO’s development, cash and a future In Display. In the process it has also relieved many shareholders of money. I know what I would call that sort of behaviour and I am really hoping judge Gilstrap sees it the same way, in which case they will get what they deserve.

Hi Basscadet. Take a look at the link to Stop the FOMO below, who reviews the Hisense H9G against the Samsung 8K QLED.

https://youtu.be/Pkjog9YlqHo

Agree BtB. Their Ethics Policy says one thing but they appear to have chosen to steer an opposing course on several occasions now. The most important thing for customers is the quality of the product and few see past that, unless they have a vested interest, like me.

The good news for those on moral high ground is that Hisense offer a QD TV every bit as good as Samsung’s but much cheaper. No disclosure yet if they are NANO CFQD or someone else’s though.

Thank you. If as the site states Sean “ Altalto is a collaboration between three co-investors: British Airways, Shell and Velocys.“ it would be nice to learn what share of costs IAG and Shell will invest?

I suppose it might be as simple as two thirds of the total cost, which seems reasonable to me.