Member Info for ddubya

When the price slides I sometimes wonder why?

As an aside, I am told that if you want to protect against shorting of your shares (and you want to be long) one legitimate option is to set an order to sell but at a price you would be exceptionally happy with (way above current SP) I understand this prevents loan of your shares and also reduces liquidity of shares ‘in play’, which helps support the SP and more it higher more quickly on good news.

It would need a large % of PIs to want to do the same to have any meaningful effect on the overall position but I am told the smaller the number of shares available to short, the more shares the shorter needs to buy back to cover their positions. They must be keen to recover recent losses.

Anyone else done this or heard of the practice?

The loss is Caroline Flack is truly tragic and a terrible waste of a very talented and beautiful young woman. I can absolutely agree there.

Thank you for your concern TB. I am sleeping very well and I get up early every weekday. It is just that I logged on this morning when I don’t normally.

Probably not very fair to present my opinion of your posting as a rant though :).

Thanks Basscadet. Nothing to disagree with there other than that discussion is around Patents and not Trademarks, which as you know serve a different purpose.

Thanks Troublesome and much appreciated. So the Coke example was you - nice one.

I am not aware that Samsung has patented any volume production process and like you am surprised, because without one they run risk it will be patented by someone else, unless of course it has already been patented ?

Absolutely possible Intrusivethought. The strategic review will include consideration for sale of parts of the IP library, to raise funds as a going concern, and Sony must be right up there with potential purchasers. Seems much more likely than sale of the total to a conglomerate of smaller firms.

Hello Troublesome. I am surprised you ask but happy to oblige. Firms such as Quantum Material Corp, Avantama and Mesolight claim to manufacture heavy metal free QD and have them available for sale commercially. NANO is not taking action against them, which suggests they follow different methods of production and certainly do not use NANOs ‘unique’ seeding process. There are also many universities and research labs doing something similar but not selling commercially, so without danger of patent infringement.

CFQD themselves cannot be Patented by NANO (or anyone) as TB infers, just some of the many processes around production, including seeding and features that make QD long lasting and stable in use, for example preventing oxidisation and improving colour gamut.

I do not include you in this statement T but the Board has become clogged up with euphoria and a specific brand of uninformed BS, which when called out is immediately followed by derision ridicule and the occasional niggle. Work is demanding enough, so I would prefer not to have to deal with the uninformed and narrow minded in my leisure time.

Without Prejudice (TB - thank you TB for creasing up my legal colleagues)

There are many ways to make QD that are free of heavy metals, or CFQD as they are often referred to. It follows that anyone can make them, although they should not be using a process that has been Patented to do so. So it is not CFQD that the Patent applies to, rather the process surrounding their manufacture. I understand that NANO claims Samsung is making them in volume using its Patented process of seeding, which allows for volume batch production. If Samsung has found another way to make CFQD in volume then it probably has not infringed NANOs Patents, although it strangely has not registered its own Patent. However, NANO seems confident it has not.

You said smaller players but now it’s the bigger ones clubbing together. Don’t think that will happen either by the way. As you say, I just don’t understand.

Prediction - there will never be an agreement between the smaller players to buy NANO - just too difficult for so many to co-ordinate and raise the cash at the one time and agree on an equitable way to share the spoils if successful in litigation. Samsung of another major player would likely trump any bid they make anyway.

Sorry for misquoting your name ganters. Spellcheck does not like your name on my phone.

You are quite right granters. Keeping recent gains all depends upon either a successful (non Samsung) offer receiving acceptance, Samsung coughing up to either settle/purchase, or winning the court case. My expectation is of one of the above happening, or a hybrid thereof. I think the first most likely, at which point Samsung will need to gather its thoughts and either pay top dollar, or enter into litigation with a company that can well afford it, either a Chinese backed firm or Apple. Of course if NANOs case is not compelling - it is house of cards I am afraid. Just don’t think it is:)

Well done Morbox that’s a good average, so you will be happy I am sure :) enough made to buy one of TBs fast cars I hope?

Watch what you say TB, or you might need to test the protection that your two magic words can offer you.

Hi Morbox. No idea how high this could go but I recollect NANO was around £1.75 at its peak (when I made my first purchase!), so if it is possible to pin much of the drop squarely on Samsung, it may have potential to go much higher.

OMG I am no longer underwater. Was not sure that would be the case a few months ago. Fingers crossed for all LTH and more of same.

Good morning Nige_W. Like me, you appear to be a little overweight in NANO!

If our case is a strong one, I agree that Samsung is going to want to settle rather than face the humiliation of a ruling against it (and potential injunction). If NANO does have Samsung by the short and curlies, it should extract everything possible from the US action and repeat jurisdiction by jurisdiction. When this is over, I hope we shall all be able to look forward to a prosperous retirement and each be a little more streetwise about the way that some Global Corporates operate.

The court case will be won or lost on the merits of NANOs case alone. I have a great deal of confidence that ME (himself a scientist) and the BoD would not proceed down the path of litigation, unless it was and warranted and thought they could prove it to the satisfaction of the court. Best not to start with any pre conceived idea that success is assured though, sometimes events do not go to plan.

In my view the ante has been upped considerably since learning of this action. The stakes for Samsung are enormous, and if Samsung thought it could settle for £400 or £500m, I suspect it would have done so. Far bigger numbers are in play and the issue is Samsung's survival as a CF display manufacturer (and NANO's existence of course). If Samsung were guilty of theft, I suspect it would struggle, other than as a licensee to NANO. Quite possibly NANO may end up thriving on income derived from licensees that include Samsung. Something it (and shareholders who have exited) was/were perhaps entitled to years ago. If Samsung is guilty I expect it will be a long and painful experience.

It is good to have an insight of someone involved in Intellectual Property IP man so thank you for posting.

If NANO is successful in Texas, it will be because it successfully has demonstrated that IP has been infringed. Lessons learned in that action would help inform the right arguments to win in other jurisdictions and receive whatever damages and costs the courts would award, I would expect? Samsung would continue to market products that rely on the same infringements (if that is what they are) worldwide until NANO was able to make it too uncomfortable to do business.

Can you help answers this question. If the court also made an award for losses incurred to the point of the decision, would it also be possible for it to place an injunction that prevented Samsung selling such products in the US for the balance of each Patents lifespan of at least a lengthy period. If it were that would be a powerful tool but if not I wonder what disincentive there is to prevent the poserful, like Samsung, from taking what they want?

Mr Market is liking something about NANO today. Feels positive.