Member Info for ddubya

Having been here from almost the very beginning, you don’t need to convince me SL. Samsung is unlikely to agree so it’sJudge Gilstrap that needs to be persuaded:)

I would certainly be very happy with a Ten bag (Or more) Nige.

Nige. QNED relies on light emitting ‘rods’ which have a very different appearance to a QD. It does not follow that Samsung is not further infringing NANO but I don’t think it can be assumed it is either.
Fingers crossed for an early settlement - if the number is right it would be best for all.

The Businesslive article states “ The Altalto Immingham site, as it is to be known, is backed in a joint venture with national flag carrier British Airways and Shell.“. However, to my knowledge it has not been stated that agreement on IAG and Shell funding has been agreed, or at least not stated publicly - take up of the options has not been confirmed either. Hopefully all must be well and an RNS is being drafted?

When I used “...if and when...” it was to recognise the possibility that Samsung might settle but there is no certainty of that Nige, even though the majority do settle and Samsung will be guided by its lawyers and advisers on whether it is worth fighting. If they roll over it will probably be a day or two before the trial date in 2021 or later.

NANO on the other hand seems to have done its best to achieve a settlement but has been rebuked. Appointment of the TP funder probably means there is a lower chance of early settlement and NANO’s side will now push until it feels it has optimised its expense/return. So unless Samsung does a 180, I believe there is a real possibility of the long haul (and a bigger payout too). I think I would prefer that.

Unfortunately SL, if and when the court decides in NANO’s favour, damages will be calculated according to precedents and protocols etc.
Of course, it would do better to plump for a round (and far from unreasonable) £3bn but...?

Let’s hope the Judge see’s it that way too Nanonano. UK plc should not be doing business with anyone guilty of such charges.

I am more upbeat regarding the future though and feel confident the new furrow NANO has ploughed itself in IR sensors will turn it around. It looks like that’s how LO views it too, otherwise why part with more cash on those terms?

QNED relies on a QD Colour conversion filter and potentially provides more brightness and deeper blacks, so it could be the future for Display. It also partially explains why Samsung Display is selling off LED production.

Samsung has yet to demonstrate the QNED will work and it remains a QD technology, so it could possibly infringes on some other NANO patents?

In any event QNED will not be here until 2023 and as Samsung is unlikely to be licensing QNED to other Display manufacturers, I suspect the market for QD in Display is likely to be here for years, including within QD/OLED.

I suspect NANO’s long term future is probably best assured within the fast growing IR sensor space and the other areas such as vertical farming and medicine.

Yes, they would if NANO wins. The damages would provide the equivalent of what would have been received on a licence basis and that amount can be increased by a factor of three if the infringement can be shown to be wilful. Damages on the new profit calculations could be much larger and in the £bn’s but an award on that basis is at the Court’s discretion.

Mostly what I can see is what we know already - that it will include industry, academia and government figures.

The article below identifies a Professor Iain Gray as being appointed to the Council.

https://cranfieldandmarstonvale.co.uk/cranfield/cranfield-academic-zero-emission-flights/

No idea I am afraid Sean (I have tried to find out before) although I would have thought Velocys will be limited to providing a representative (assuming it is central to the Council’s purpose). We do know that “backing” is being provided for Velocys, so perhaps today or soon we get to find out what form that takes?

I drew the same conclusion YBD. £350m for other initiatives is not a lot, so really hoping that Carbon negative aviation fuel will be held out for special treatment (and funding) to champion the Green agenda.

I can’t see the government funding the full cost of development, whether that be £200m or £600m and I expect Shell and IAG to put up the Lion’s share, with a further cash raise further down the line to top up development costs.

Boris will want the first meeting to catch the headlines, so there might even be some news or an indication of when we shall get it later today?

Or, like assisting Samsung to fund its defence. Shame on you Feeks, although I suppose if you really need one (of two) now, nothing beats a NANO television :)

I like the idea for exactly that reason Feeks. And how many many people do you see just walking and talking on their phones these days? No need for extra earphones (or chargers), just your regular sun or prescription glasses. That's the market and might even encourage some to leave their contact lenses at home. Need to take a look to see what these patents, new and applied for, cover.

We certainly cannot accuse LO of being uncommitted to NANO and to be quite frank their substantial contribution in the recent raise was made at the narrowest of discounts. I believe it sends a pretty resounding message to anyone who thinks NANO is considered to be anything other than a winner by LO. I still think we needs to see the orders before Mr Market responds in the way it should.

It could be that Samsung’s CFQD are cheaper Nige, after all, it appears their R&D cost was a very reasonable £zero, which must provide an edge. And having announced a ban on Harmful Substances in China, the concept does not appear to have gained too much traction, as in Europe (surprisingly) so not yet sufficient incentive for the Chinese to make the shift and incur retooling costs?

So, for CFQD and NANO shares, it should be "All aboard that's coming aboard". Orders could come at any point in time and when NANO demonstrates it is or will be a going concern the best gains will have been locked in. DYOR of course.

Just goes to show Basscadet that NANO is the only technology in town too and without it, what does Samsung have to offer the Display sector?

We also appear to have two firms offering NANO tech too, so in the near term there could be some serious competition for Samsung.

We can each have Samsung’s ‘Wall’ TV if they settle!

Certainly hope so Newboy58. It is possible that Samsung settled prior to trial with Image Processing Technologies for that reason but also (and more likely) that it is concentrating its legal resources on the NANO claim, which is potentially far more costly and much more embarrassing. Samsung may have realised the error of its ways but not yet, it would seem, that it needs to pay for them.