Member Info for ddubya

Catwith9lives enquiry of a customer helps to add confidence in orders and I don’t see cause to doubt what we have been told by the current management team. Having such a rumour hanging around is not terribly helpful though.

Sounds entirely plausible Leo_IX, although it should be clarified in time and following any FCA review. If there was wrongdoing there could still be a comeback on us of course.

I'm in tune with that thinking Screenlearner. I did think it was time for Mike to consider his position when Apple terminated (and said as much) but ironically, having a CEO based in the States has probably greatly assisted development of the case against Samsung and it has been quite an achievement to take the lawsuit cost off balance sheet. It has been necessary to convince top lawyers that the case is sound and it is ready for the main test.

Despite the wait, my sense is also that we are on the cusp, so no advantage to a change at the top now. IR sensors will be the main source of income near term, Display might follow and the lawsuit is the cherry on the cake.

Sorry PiratePete. The link I provided is years old and refers to the old model, so you never know.

Unfortunately it does not seem to be the case, per the following:
https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1444977292

“Apple is not using “quantum dot” technology to achieve the wider color space. Instead, they have opted to use red/green phosphor technology, which is also used by TV manufacturers such as Panasonic.”

Soz Bot - I have not had that problem on LSE.

Jason Hartlove is a very charismatic guy and Nanosys certainly has a very different approach to NANO. There is no doubt they are the ones to beat. However, ME says we have the best CFQD. We either need convert that statement to sales via Merck (or Dow) or become the leader in IR sensor technology.

Nanosys might have Shoei but NANO has had a Manufacture and distribution agreement with Dow for years and also a fully operational factory next door to Samsung for years!

I am going to guess that Shoei/Nanosys will not suffer from the same sales ineptitude that Dow suffers (for whatever reason). QD’s time in Display is arriving, so NANO needs to ensure that it secures a good share.

If tomorrow, Andrex announced it had put a two man crew on the moon, I would find that a little more believable than Hansol's claim to have invented the CFQD and means to produce it in volume.

Looking forward to This week’s trading, to find out if there is anything behind Friday’s tick up. If Bot’s gods are listening, it would be nice to hear that NANO or Merck is supplying QD to AUO.

I agree Feeks. And longer term its features might be of interest to another smart glasses manufacturer such as VUZIX, which you will be aware of from NANO discussion.

That’s a good question SL - you would think it should be.

Hansol is owned by a relative of Samsung and long ago used to be part of it. It is known for products and services including paper, electronics, chemicals, logistics, IT, household interiors and construction - I think it fair to say not best known for Nano science - so strange in itself.

I have also wondered why Hansol is not party to the complaint and my best guess is that it is not involved in the way Samsung has stated, and NANO has knowledge both that Hansol is a ‘front’ as the source of CFQD and Samsung developed and produces them (using NANO IP).

Only NANO and Samsung know the answers but no doubt your question was considered thoroughly by the legal advisers and also as part of several DD processes, so I feel sure there will be a rational explanation.

Thanks Nanonano. I recollect there was suggestion that NANO was partnering AUO, followed (as usual) by the long silence. Would not be surprised if AUO got a top offer from Samsung to use Hansol dots instead? They certainly perform like NANO CFQD - wonder why?

I think at least one colour of Nanosys dots is ROHS compliant but still not CF (might have changed) so less likely to be theirs?

If Hansol’s dots are inside, perhaps Mintz may be able to ask for these screens to be considered as part of the US litigation too?

I am always pleased when I get it wrong in that way SL. It has been up over 12% at times.

Looks like we have one of those odd pushes up without news (at least for now).

Did I say up 11%? Oops - meant 8.3%

Up 11% at the moment which I am liking very much.

No news that I am aware of but yesterday’s loss made good at least (for now). We shall probably hear that Merck will manufacture and supply Chinese OEM with QD Colour Filters, to compete with Samsung’s - would that not be good music.

ME did say in interview a few weeks back that NANO was waiting on word from Plessey as to whether they still needed out dots. I remember feeling he said it with a certain resignation, so given the passing of time, I suspect Plessey no longer needs us and we have been dumped - without so much as a text!

Sure does - and yet LSE still manages to show us 1.07% up on the day. How does that work?

It feels like NANO has a good case, so great to see that Samsung is doing so well. They are likely to be relieved of a very large sum, if this goes to Court.

Unfortunately, I can't see Samsung offering enough money to compensate NANO (and also the TP funder) for the perceived value in both IR and the litigation. Stranger things have happened though, so we never know?

An early settlement certainly makes complete sense and I have always felt the offer you suggested would be reasonable and acceptable if made before a court case commences. However, Samsung has a clear track record of using litigation to achieve its goals, to delay and even pay less in damages than the Court awards. Settling before a Court case is the exception for it and not the rule, and in this case the potential damages are larger than the seven year Apple case.

I shall be pleased if Samsung settles but if their initial response to NANO's complaint is not dismissed outright by the judge, I suspect the resolution is at least a year or two away, and all focus needs to be on generating further income streams, which thankfully seems to be what is happening.

If the thoroughly reputable Samsung is selling IP infringing QD colour filter components to include in Chinese Displays, the implication is that damages will be based on the wholesale cost of the component and not the elevated profit on the completed product. That is potentially a contrived way to limit the extent of further damages payable.

To my mind, Samsung electronics and Samsung Display are most unlikely to have fallen out with each other. The latest move suggests further coordinated and dubious behaviour, of the sort a guilty party would take to avoid paying its dues.