Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
They've taken huge profits from selling at 60p upwards, so they're already winning. They still own 13% which is fairly large chunk. Surely if they wanted out they'd have sold a lot more than they have already. Maybe they're happy to float around 10% to sweep up a positive settlement with future deals??
everyone posting on this board, negative or positive, has something to gain from Nanoco otherwise why bother? The stirring though is uninformative and seemingly purposeful to mislead, as if a game. Shame really, it's becoming worse than ADVFN. Hopefully we'll know the outcome soon so the nonsense can stop.
This is a logical and fair assessment IMO. Question, (if) Samsung have sold Nanos IP to other companies, ie, Sony etc surely the settlement will not cover on going rights to those to continue using it??? There is info out there to suggest Sony have put their new QDTV sales on hold to see what this ligitation outcome is, perhaps this is where new licences and deals will come in for Nano...
is lessening day by day. Perhaps we've finally hit the bottom now and just waiting for the all telling RNS.
Market currently valuing Nano at 122M so considering it's all doom and gloom here with irrational comments suggesting there's no future prospects.... Not bad!
Still hold 262k shares and I will 100% be holding.
Facts are we know there's a settlement coming and based on the fact BT has got us this far I trust his judgement that it will be transformative.
GLA
A question I haven't seen addressed...
Does no on going royalties mean the same as no on going licence? BT has stated that if we win or Samsung settle, and Samsung continue to use thier own supplier which use our IP then a licence agreement would need to be put in place with that supplier as Nanoco cannot stop Samsung using someone else to provide the dots themselves... This is an important point, unless I've misunderstood, that's what I understand from the April Q&A
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4548254-nanoco-group-plc-nnocf-q4-2022-earnings-call-transcript
For those with views based on no facts read this
I don't understand where most of the assumptions on this board come from tbh, but BT clearly says in a previous interview that in the case of a settlement, nano would keep a high majority of the fee in terms of legal costs.
FWIW 2021 results BT it's very relevant. Listen to to whole thing. Not once has BT given a figure on expected settlement, but has outlined how enormous the market is that their IP has been used. So any figure is pure speculation however he specifically says multiples of the current 100M cap (back in 2021)... So there's our rough answer.
Sorry to play devils advocate....
X3 based on what? Your own research or what other people post?
If you research you'll find that X3 would be upper end of wilful payout therefore this was unlikely anyway. It's this kind of info that causes upset IMO. It's not rational and informative.
Don't forget I'm sure they have to be very careful how they word the RNS for ligitation reasons. IMO both RNS have only stated facts, with a very positive outlook and view point from BT. Nothing wrong with that. It's the market that have ramped this up and down, people have made money in the last 2 trading days. It's rebalanced itself. I see nothing wrong with these RNSs on a balanced, non biased view.
IMO a lot of you are missing this part of the RNS..
Brian Tenner, Chief Executive Officer of Nanoco, said:
"A settlement provides certainty to all our stakeholders and further reinforces our confidence in the validity and enforceability of the Group's global patent portfolio.
"I am more confident than ever about Nanoco's future prospects. A settlement provides a firm financial underpinning to focus on our organic business, which has made significant progress over the last three years. It also demonstrates the Company's willingness to vigorously defend our global IP portfolio against any potentially infringing parties in the wider market."
These comments IMO validate my previous points.
1) the settlement is to cover the ligitation past present and future.
2) the settlement cannot predict future revenues made
3) NO!! Samsung and any other company currently using or want to use Nanos IP cannot just use it for free!! This settlement validates our IP hence the ablitily to make new contracts outside this ligitation process