Member Info for ddubya

Currently 9.78 to buy. Down over 13% earlier and now up over 2% on the day so far - exceptionally volatile today.

Some good news like an order or deal would certainly be welcome Itsamaybe.

I can hardly believe I first bought in at over £1.70 and did not sell. I held because I have always believed NANO will come good, despite Samsung’s best efforts.

I realise that likelihood of my original holding surfacing is remote but there remains hope for more recent purchases.

If China was not ready to move in Dec/Jan due to Covid-19 it should be soon, so we should have some measure of interest in a few weeks/months.

These 'Future' loans (max £5m) are offered over three years at 8% compound interest, with outstanding debt converted to equity at end of term. Private investors need to raise funds that match the government loan (50%). With a £5m rights issue, NANO could potentially raise £10m in total on terms that would be favourable or shareholders and avoid dilution for those that choose to participate.

It certainly has to be possible that NANO will fit the criteria Screenlearner. The little I have seen does not suggest they will be excluded and funds appear targeted at tech growth stocks just like NANO.

The terms have to be worthy of consideration and no doubt that is what it will be receiving.

That’s good to hear Morbox. Interesting to see that Samsung is mentioned as the accused in one case too. If that case were upheld, you might expect the Court’s patience with Samsung to be wearing thin.

I seem to recollect you had 1.5m shares botbot? If you are following your own advice, does that mean you will soon have 4.5m shares? If so, we should all benefit from an SP increase as you scoop up your further 3m.

NANONANO - Just wonder if that article indicates that Samsung is in the process of moving the goalposts?

NANO’s litigation is against Samsung, which may cease to infringe NANO patents directly, when panels (Including CFQD variants) are sourced from Chinese suppliers at the end of the year.

Unless Samsung intends to use NANO, it would suggest it has ALREADY shared NANO’s secrets and patented process with preferred suppliers as if it were its own?

If so, I am unclear how this impacts the remedy for NANO. Does Samsung remain fully responsible where a third party component used infringes it’s patents? I hope so, as it might otherwise mean NANO needs to consider this development in its litigation and perhaps take similar action against against any other brand that uses patent infringing displays, and/or the CFQD manufacturers themselves (good luck if they are Chinese).

You can be sure that if it is Samsung technology T, then Samsung’s strong ethical stance will negate any potential conflict of interest.

Pity they don’t allow Huawei to supply any sensitive Programmes in the States.

I see that ET Marshall District Court has facilities to conduct trial by Jury electronically. That's inventive and might be considered suitable to apply in NANO v Samsung?

http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/?q=courtroom-technology

Here at Samsung we adhere to a strict Code of Ethics, which specifically prohibits the infringement of IP and we freely publish such policy and standards on the web. I simply do not recognise the behaviour you highlight here at Samsung Your Honour and respectfully suggest that you must be mistaken.

Hi Hawi. Do you think NANO could help with the immediate Coronavirus crisis and bring solutions to bear now, or do you mean it would be good PR to point to how CFQD could be helpful in the development of future solutions that identify specified virus and possibly even treat them?

Certainly prefer the LSE price to reality.

On another subject, China reported no new Coronavirus deaths today, so whether their mortality statistics are to be believed or not, there is no doubt that China is slowly returning to something more like normality. If there is Chinese interest in NANO, of the Display part of it, this would be a great time to move on it, when South Korea and the rest of the world is preoccupied with their own health issues.

Hello T and sorry you find it obnoxious to refer to the PM by his christian name. I did not mean to cause offence but find it difficult to understand that point of view in part because the PM does not discourage the label but we are of course each entitled to our view and opinion.

TB - I agree the Court case is likely to be delayed and I understand a three month delay is anticipated in the Eastern Texas Court, so it feels like we agree.

Good morning TB. No doubt borrowings need to be repaid, although it was taken at an all time interest rate low and I suspect Boris has quite a bit set aside some set aside for investment following the CV-19 Exit.

I take it you mean “ ...it would be inconceivable that a delay in most of the court proceedings would NOT apply ...”?

Also, are you still holding here or have you sold up?

Agree Torpedo, although as Morbox points out the deadline may not have passed. When it has, I would expect news only if events have taken an unexpected turn, e.g. Samsung has requested a delay or has not contested.

Good afternoon Bagpuss - It is possible Samsung has already filed a defence or requested an extension, just that we have not heard yet. I don't know what process is followed to release such information but I imagine it would go through Mintz and onward to NANO, which will not want to antagonise the judge (who probably would not welcome a running commentary). Given the long journey we have been on without access to meaningful information, it would be great to be a 'fly on the wall'.

I like your explanation better JBongo, but I am guessing we shall learn in the next few days/weeks that Samsung has already requested a delay in submission of its defence. Most likely the court would agree to extension in light of the Covid -19 outbreak. However, we might also hope it insists on some form of outline defence to demonstrate it has one, rather than use the extension to waste time.

Possibly the Interims have been held back as long as possible, in hope of tagging on latest re the strategic review?

Not sure the deadline for Samsung to respond to NANO’s claim is newsworthy as the deadline is in the public domain. If Samsung does not file a response it will probably have also requested an extension in light of Circumstances re Covid-19.

In near complete agreement Amerloque, although I sense NANO has always been swimming against the tide, as at least one party has plotted to trip it up (successfully). The potential 'goods' are huge and in my view Samsung has been caught shoplifting. Mainly for that reason, I find it difficult to be too harsh on NANO at this stage, although I believe the Board should have focussed on delivery of unconnected income steams such as horticultural lighting, which if they had been realised would likely have dissuaded Samsung from its campaign of tricks.

Like you, I hope NANO has tied down its patents sufficiently well, and also that contractual arrangements during the collaborative phase provide more comfort? Proof, or otherwise, will be revealed in the court case (or earlier settlement).

It takes all sorts Basscadet, so nice to know there are some compliant criminals out there. However, unless there is a last minute capitulation, it looks like Samsung is doing it Gangnam style.