We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
It's saying that nano could no longer take them to court for stealing their IP. But that doesn't mean they can't continue to us thier IP for free! Hence future growth, new deal. It can't be written into this settlement... Think about it, you can't equate how much money will be made over the next, say, 10 years and therefore predict how much money to give Nano now.... That'd be unfair for both parties. Settle for damages now. Move on. New deals going forward. Samsung already using Nano in furtrw TVs so I'm pretty sure IMO a new contract outside the settlement will be set up to use Nano IP.
IMO in reading this RNS, the settlement can not include a continued deal...as in future royalties. Its a way of saying the settlement is for the past stolen IP and "future ligitation"...not sales. Surely Samsung will have to pay for using the IP in future sales...That's where a seperate contract OUTSIDE of the settlement will be negotiated as it always should have been. Hence...future growth...their way of saying let's get on with creating future contacts and deals... IMO this is how I read this RNS, it's to stop people getting ahead of themselves and protecting the ligitation process. The ligitation is a seperate issues to future revenue.
It wouldn't make sense to write the royalties into their agreement settlement IMO. Who's to say that if Samsung continues to use Nano tech they have to buy and set up a seperate contract with Nano going forward...
Everyone jumping to conclusions IMO
1) this RNS is good and suggestive. The settlement won't be $1 billion or $3 billion as some wildy hope for so it puts those unrealistic views which are just as damaging to bed
2) BT has already suggested 200 - 250M for US only not inc. possible wilful multiplier. This RNS says global and for future sales... And just for Samsung... Anyone else using their dots now would have to come to Nano
3) with that in mind a low range offer surely therefore has to calculate above 200M as already suggested... That already puts the SP way above what we see now.
4) Panic over - start reading things properly people and Do Your Research!!
Having watched BT interviews in the past year I feel confident in his judgement of what is fair and I doubt he'd walk away with an unfair settlement based on PTAB results, they couldn't be more conclusive. Samsung never stood a chance. Time will tell, we can keep on assuming but no one knows. I won't be selling, I believe in BTs RNS statements, I feel the technology is future proof and the fact Samsung didn't draw this out to appeals is sufficient evidence they're guilty. Weigh up how much they'd lose on trial Vs settlement... This is going to be big IMO
This was my point yesterday... Samsung can walk away supposedly untarnished however you do feel like it therefore plays into Nanos hands for the amount of settlement they should receive. The balance for both parties should still bias towards Nano getting closer to what they deserve even though the long drawn out legal process has been but short IMO
IMO BT would not release an RNS titled Settlement agreed if it was going to be reversed. His RNS's have been consistent and upfront. They employed a lawyer last year that specialises in settlements so this was always on the cards IMO. Based on No Fault settlement reached, I believe Samsung want to walk away untarnished and Nano would NOT allow a No fault settlement conclusion unless they were happy with the settlement demands. BT has the share holders on mind here. IMO
Interesting that this has reached a "no fault" settlement... Does this tell us that Samsung want to be able to settle without technically taking any bad press off the back off it? They knew it was checkmate from PTAB results so they are now looking to walk away untarnished. Therefore IMO surely Nano can basically right the cheque and take what they deserve...
Interesting that this has reached a "no fault" settlement... Does this tell us that Samsung want to be able to settle without technically taking any bad press off the back off it? They knew it was checkmate from PTAB results so they are now looking to walk away untarnished. Therefore IMO surely Nano can basically right the cheque and take what they deserve...
From my understanding this is simply (simply lol) ruling what is meant by specific terminologies given in court so there are no disputes. In turn I feel this goes against Samsung's strategy of defence, as in they wanted to change what is meant by certain terminologies to suit their angle of defence. Could be interesting tomorrow in terms of investors confidence.