Member Info for ddubya

Thanks TB. Not sure I can bestow any wisdom on the Texan Judge but if and when I receive his call, I shall be certain to put you together. You can educate him as how in England “...it only takes them 2 tiny we words to keep you from being sued...” and of course update him on that legal case you have managed so successfully - Lol 17/02/20 20:24

Thanks for that link Hawi. I cannot download these at the moment but will certainly take a look this evening . I hope that NANO is well prepared as T suggests, we shall need to be but given that NANO employees are very much brighter than average, I am confident they will have done their homework. It takes many months to prepare a submission to the satisfaction of the lawyers and (hopefully ) the courts, so it feels like NANO has had this in reserve for some time, and that Samsung does not want to play.

Just in case anyone has the wrong idea, finishing off a message using"Without Prejudice" is no protection against being sued for wrongdoing in it.

If for example, you make defamatory statements, those words do not offer any protection. It's purpose is as a form of legal privilege, so that when trying to settle a dispute, parties can send letters and have confidence that what they say cannot be presented as evidence against them. Even where it is used, unless there is a bona fide attempt made to settle the dispute, it's inclusion can be voided\disregarded.

This will be a very complex case to bring against Samsung and I suspect all sides will have need to call upon independent professional witnesses. However, NANO has some of the best scientists in the field and if they are of the view that patents have been infringed then I consider we have a high likelihood of success. God help the jury, but I suspect they will never be called upon. If Samsung lets NANO call into someone else's hands without being certain it has no case to answer, it is entirely possible that it's continued position at the top of the Display tree will be rather short lived.

MrBWM is of course right. However, it is rare for individuals to be taken to task or significant awards made from points of discussion. It is most unlikely anyone would even think of taking legal action but you never know.

Absolutely possible but only Samsung’s US subsidiaries named in the action at this stage.

Samsung certainly has enormous influence but it also has adversaries that may be envious of its success and relish the opportunity both to acquire NANO’ patents and to take up the legal challenge in its place.

Mr BWM - The risk is high because if the claims were groundless, Samsung would have a counter claim for damages. And the whole process is costly and consuming if management time. I believe that NANO wanted the ‘American partner’ fees in the bank before proceeding and also it would have much preferred that Samsung make a good offer without the friction that goes with litigation. Where I can agree is that negotiation with Samsung has not gone to plan. Samsung might be interested but is dragging it out to ensure NANO burns its cash in operations and can no longer fight.

I have a few TVs but none of their replacements will be Samsung - for now:)

This is just what NANO needs to creat press interest, which should be positive for share price.

I am also going to hazard a guess that NANO are not using wide boy tactics. If they are filing for infringement of patents it is because they truly believe in their case. The risk is high but the potential reward is very much greater.

I shall wait however long it takes but I fully expect a major to take up the challenge from here, and win.

Let's hope so! The outcome obviously depends upon the strength and validity of NANO's infringement claims.
Most likely bidders will want to make their own assessment (and that may slow discussion a little). However, in terms of 'Display' the worst case scenario is that we offer the only CFQD producer OEM can access outside of Samsung, and best case that we offer the world the only legitimate and scalable source of CFQD. Unlucky Samsung.

Hi Basscadet. The RNS is clear that door has been left open for Samsung to reach agreement, and infers that prospective purchasers are likely to have the incentive and money needed to take Samsung the whole way. Certainly, the Chinese have the money needed to take Samsung all the way on patent infringement, as do Apple and others have need to.

I think ME is playing this very well in difficult circumstances.

I agree Basscadet. There would be much more value for shareholders long term if we could establish income stream now, and commercialise non Display lines. Unfortunately, successive UK governments have not supported and protected companies in the way that the Americans, Chinese and others do.

Unfortunately, a sale might represent the best value we can hope for.

Unless there is an early out of court settlement, or a sale to Samsung the litigation will take many months and more likely years. My take on timing is that following months of discussion with Samsung ME has concluded he is not making headway and any offer made either to compensate or buy the entire firm is not sufficient compensation for NANO.
Samsung is probably hoping that we run out of money and wind up well before the litigation completes.

Indeed T. I can’t help thinking that one or more parties must still have interest and be continuing discussions, otherwise it would require an RNS to advise the market of the change. No news might just be good news here, although perhaps not for the short term share price?

I think BBD means survival would be an excellent result for many, as it should mean most of us see our money back? I believe we may do better than that but not counting any chickens. This is NANO after all.

Hello Teverham. Is it not the case that there are already boilers on the market (under £10k) which concert natural gas to Hydrogen using catalysts, and produce a similar result to a fuel cell? I do not know how energy efficient these are but that may avoid need to convert the gas network to Hydrogen.

Excess electricity (not used to charge your electric car) could also be sold back to the grid, and could even be used to make more hydrogen.

With the additional possibility of blending gas with a % of Hydrogen in the gas supply, these are indeed very exciting times for the energy sector.

If we can identify some of the winners (in addition to ITM) we should do very well for ourselves (and the planet too).

You make some very valid points in recent posts Colonel, which mirror my own thoughts.

Today's electric cars (at least) cannot be the only fix required to achieve net zero emissions in road transport. Even with a quantum leap in range and a further reduction in charging times, the national grid could not cope with demand. Neither do I believe the government will entertain the cost of a charging point under every street. I am sure there remains a future for electric but other solutions are needed too, most likely including hydrogen and synthetic fuel made fom waste products, such as food and also algaes.

The government says it will ban all hybrid, diesel and petrol car sales from 2035, but unless it creates a framework of innovation that will make that a reality and backs it with financial incentive, it is simply more empty rhetoric.

I agree T - tickled me!

We should keep in mind that NANO 's 750 + parents do not all have application in Display because it's research spans numerous sectors including Solar and Medical. That serves to complicate the value calculation and raises the possibility of Patents being sold in Blocks according to sector. Whether NANO is worth more or less if sold piecemeal I can't say.

Square root!