Member Info for Dwstudios

To clarify I have had 280k shares for 4 years. So my thinking is 55k shares is less than 38% therefore I have a window to make a profit from the tender by buying that amount of shares to offset using the tender :)

If I buy say £12k @ 21.3p now which is 55k shares. And accept my tender offer and specifically tender 55k shares for 24p, I'll legitimately make profit?! Which would be roughly £1200

..however, the RNS talks about how 2 patents were not included in the sale and we retain the core patents. We do not know what this means specifically, however, it does leave the door open to more information to come.... Your interpretation of the RNS is concluding that it's basically all over for this tech but I think it's too early to conclude that. The info given suggests we have protected something.

HH, I think you'll find nothing was signed to say they can continue to sell nano IP... Thats non factual ranting yet again. A balanced view would therefore be that in this example, Sony are unable to continue to sell anything using Nano IP they bought from Samsung. This would also backup the RNS's wording. And further more, does that also mean that Sony (in this example) could sue Samsung for selling them an IP unlawfully which stops them continuing to use it?

I think there's a lot more to come and a lot we don't know about. Yet.

And that's where we are at. The settlement has put a stop to anyone except Samsung to continue using the IP. And we have no confirmation of who is yet. Although I'm betting there's a few and some. I read this morning that OnePlus phones are now using AMOLED in their devices which is Samsung tech.

Here's one... Let's say Sony bought their panels or dots off Samsung which were using our IP. They've paid for them already and Samsung has Sony's money. Then what? Sony sue Samsung to get money back? We go t o Sony? Etc... Complicated!

What if he can't... IE he knows deals / licences are currently being setup... That'd be inside trading surely.... So maybe therefore he will but after he's released potential good news

So does a lack of. Lol.

I've added, total shares 281,000.

I've heard on the grapevine that Sony have postponed their new QDTV going on sale until the litigation had concluded. Could be nonsense, but the RNS supports it

Absolutely. Well said. Most are completely ignorant to what the RNS says and are blind to reading the lines let alone between the lines.

So now we can move on...

Who else is using the same IP? They are now in a position where they cannot continue to sell.. ie Sony with their latest QDTV.... This is where it gets interesting. Forget the settlement which btw HAS put Nano on the map .. we beat Samsung, end of. And we have a huge amount of cash. This will be big news. So the ones that throw their toys out the pram and blame anyone else but themselves consider yourself blocked, it's unhelpful trash. I'll continue to post only facts I find. GLA

What we need to remember from the RNS announcement is that no one based on zero facts has a clue what the boards expectation of a settlement is. So lower expectation of what? The board were basically advised to expect the worst case which was conveyed in 2nd RNS...however it doesn't once say thats what we have agreed on. Bottom line, the RNS leaves us with nothing. Frustrating yes, but probably the only thing they could say legally without giving anything away and having an unstable SP with nothing solid to go. It's fully open to everyone's interpretation. The initial RNS got everyone excited which made the SP fly. In reality it shouldn't have done, just assumptions did that. The 2nd RNS gave everyone a kick up the *rse to get real. WE manipulated the SP based on no final info. So the last few weeks of stupid guesses and noise has basically been a waste of time. Some of the comments have been quite amusing though. For now, we wait. For the record, I agree that any settlement will setup a good future and that's what our investments should be looking at. FACTS are that Samsung have agreed to using our IP. And therefore anyone else that is will now have to come to us for permission...that's what I base my investment on for now. GLA

Gig.. what you need to remember from the RNS announcement is that you and no one based on zero facts has a clue what the boards expectation of a settlement is. So lower expectation of what? The board were basically advised to expect the worst case which was conveyed in 2nd RNS...however it doesn't once say thats what we have agreed on. Bottom line, the RNS leaves us with nothing. Frustrating yes, but probably the only thing they could say legally without giving anything away and having an unstable SP with nothing solid to go. It's fully open to everyone's interpretation. The initial RNS got everyone excited which made the SP fly. In reality it shouldn't have done, just assumptions did that. The 2nd RNS gave everyone a kick up the *rse to get real. WE manipulated the SP based on no final info. So the last few weeks of stupid guesses and noise has basically been a waste of time. Some of the comments have been quite amusing though. For now, we wait. For the record, Gig, I agree that any settlement will setup a good future and that's what our investments should be looking at. FACTS are that Samsung have agreed to using our IP. And therefore anyone else that is will now have to come to us for permission...that's what I base my investment on for now. GLA

RNS: on reading it again... and again.... You realise the choice of words are carefully considered not to give too much away from a legal standpoint.

To say we have taken previous considerations into account does not necessarily mean the settlement has been strongly influenced by them. Therefore, again, leaving it wide open. So why mention in an RNS considerations that are specifically negatively bias? Maybe simply to prevent the unrealistic calculations that have been bounded about and balance things, which to be fair looking at the SP today is roughly where we were pre trial. Forget Loam, they made big profits and are still holding a pretty substantial 12%.

So a balanced view is we know we're getting a lump sum and it's going to provide certainty. I also think BT was probably advised not to use the word transformative as it's too presumptuous in a formal statement.

Conclusion: 100% holding, even if it means waiting after the settlement for organic growth to get the SP where it's deserved, which based on all previous statements is almost a certainty.

GLA

RNS: on reading it again... and again.... You realise the choice of words are carefully considered not to give too much away from a legal standpoint.

To say we have taken previous considerations into account does not necessarily mean the settlement has been strongly influenced by them. Therefore, again, leaving it wide open. So why mention in an RNS considerations that are specifically negatively bias? Maybe simply to prevent the unrealistic calculations that have been bounded about and balance things, which to be fair looking at the SP today is roughly where we were pre trial. Forget Loam, they made big profits and are still holding a pretty substantial 12%.

So a balanced view is we know we're getting a lump sum and it's going to provide certainty. I also think BT was probably advised not to use the word transformative as it's too presumptuous in a formal statement.

Conclusion: 100% holding, even if it means waiting after the settlement for organic growth to get the SP where it's deserved, which based on all previous statements is almost a certainty.

GLA

I actually lol to this comment! Honestly it's like a play ground, you all crying not getting your own way and not taking responsibility for your own decisions, BT did not take your money and invest it for you. Haha

Cool...then surely you knew that info before you went in investing in nano? No good shouting about it now. No disrespect. OFI what was the positive reason you invested in Nano in the first place?

cool ... Are you invested in Nano?

God here we go again. Another day of assumptions and BS. I'm out

Hargreaves .... Am I correct in thinking they still own 15%?