Member Info for Ecclescake

As much as you might like it to be more the Pallas / Hammodi letter was conjecture and posturing, little else.

Argentina has been a tough nut to crack and making it pay has been an uphill grind. Events in usa haven't exactly been the bonus either. PL hasn't thrown the towel in yet and some AIM CEOs would have made a complete hash of it and possibly not survived. He is an excellent deal maker as most would agree. There was a time when it felt everything was hinged on Paraguay but that doesn't feel the case now. If its successful we can be thankfully and if not it won't wipe us out. A lithium play would be the cherry on the cake, fingers cross about time we had some luck.

FYI
Link : https://1lo.co/7370U

Maybe getting all the ducks in a row before the Paraguay drill result. Definitely get the feeling it's being down played which doesn't effect the out come.

Recommended sell on a tip sheet by all accounts. Completely wrong to Recommended profit taking at this point without some strength to absorb the sells, premature. Unfortunately when these tips come along it moves several shareholders to act and that can have knock-on effects. Trouble following these tip sheets is anyone who doesn't move gets left out so like sheep they all move and hit thier remaining holdings down 10% negating gains.

How Nanosys and Samsung claimed CFQD
'The cadmium is present only in the QD film which according to the RoHS directive’s
definition is a ****geneous material as it cannot be mechanically disjointed into separate
materials. The REACH Regulation 1907/2006 Annex XVII gives a concentration limit for
“cadmium in plastic materials”, which is a different definition to RoHS.
QD film and the three filters are tightly combined in the product to
form a “plastic material” in which the overall cadmium content is <0.01%, i.e. below the
REACH concentration limit'

Nanosys cfqd claim was based on the RoSH Compliance application because of a technicalities, the cadmium was in the plastic film.
https://www.edn.com/samsung-introduces-new-era-of-tv-using-nanosys-technology/

Draw your own conclusions,
https://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_15/3rd_Consultation/contribution_Nanosys_RoHS15_Ex_Joint_Cd_QD_Annex_20190512.pdf

https://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_IX/Request_2013-5/3M_QDEF_Exemption_Dossier.pdf

The original argument for cadmium was the power advantage over CFQD. They drew comparison of power saved using a TV for 5 years and cadmium produced from the power production. At that time cfqd film was somewhat less efficient, not sure if that still applies today. Its not clear if Samsung have always used cfqd film and may have been part of the settlement negotiations in that 'got you' moment ;)
There are articles, mostly several years old covering the cadmium film use.

Very bizarre not to mention the commercial aspect , didnt need to give commercially sensitive info, but a nod to a consideration, licence, royalty or just selling the graphite.

QLED may be very profitable but what was the cost of bringing it to market? We know the capital cost we're in the billions and the initial reject rate was circa 80 percent. I couldn't guess where Samsungs breakeven point might be, but not sure they are there yet.
https://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/n/Samsungs-first-QD-OLED-TV-could-be-delayed-amid-price-dispute

Many of the false narratives have assumed Samsung have made vast amount of profit from the use of Nanoco's IP, but its not apparent they have. I suggest they used the cost of bringing this technology to market in the settlement negotiations. Had this followed conventional practice the initial discussions would have requested a contribution to the costs involved of using CFQD in a production process.
Just for a moment take your Nanoco shareholder " I going to be a millionaire" cap off and concider why the settlement is was it is. If you can't get past BT mislead or capitulated, that's OK as well.

8% More info for your research from 20 oct. Some of the info can be viewed in the light of recent developments, which is insightful.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NANO/preliminary-results-q4raty06416c5t3.html

Prior to the settlement there were no know facts, there were aims, objectives and aspirations. For both sides. Add in the discussions was the judge as referee and advocate. Yes you can game plan all the possible scenarios , but in the white heat of negotiations you end up having to make a choice faced with the FACTS continue with the litigation knowing the opposing argument and the judge indicating the probable outcome or making a settlement. I can give you a Samsung argument for a lower settlement than Nanoco were aiming for, but it would be pointless conjecture. NANOCO should be applauded with the settlement. If it didn't meet your expectations because you dididn'have all the information to counter disappointed, thats not anyones fault but your own.

It's a minefield
https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Hao+PANG

Easier to find if you use people's names, the patents then become assigned to the company.

https://quantumscis.com/2022/07/26/quantum-science-to-showcase-the-latest-infiq-quantum-dot-technology-at-a-leading-industry-event/
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Stuart-K-Stubbs-50063742

The picture looked a lot different back in May 2017, but I think the numbers show the settlement in a different light.
Possible the settlement refers to First generation cfqdf
https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/edison-initiation-note.pdf

NHS procurement and contract procedures and process is not widely understood, some have used the recent UTC contract for their own ends and others have assumed its been negative.

Directors buying is a good sign, might be more RNS to follow with more director buys if the last couple of years is anything to go by.

Kyulux is delighted to collaborate with Nanoco on this project, which will produce a vast improvement in display technology," said Christopher Savoie, Chief Executive Officer of Kyulux Inc. "As well as enhancing brightness and color, our next generation of display devices will be both cost effective and highly energy efficient. This will offer a technology breakthrough, particularly in the manufacture of ultra-high definition large screen devices."
Under the terms of the agreement, Nanoco and Kyulux will jointly develop and market this future display technology.
Latest Feb 23
https://www.kyulux.com/kyulux-chosen-nedo-r-d-startup-support-project-hf/