Member Info for Feeks

Is it a great product though? It doesn't sell. I presume it is just too expensive. Why else does it not shift? We were given a string of early RNS to indicate it was selling, and then lots of backtracking as orders were delayed, but mainly silence. How is this different to the early failed orders that TW sas so critical of. There has been loads of talk of huge expansion plans (for what exactly?) It is now silly to trust the management on anything.

Yes, I was taken in by all the cheerleaders too and by a series of fluffy RNS. But VDTK had consistently failed to deliver for months now and I have long been critical of that.

More of the same really. Just watch this plummet today now the cheerleaders have departed.

7am RNS...?

Only thing I noticed was slightly more powdery, less granular texture. It maybe made a slight difference and major brands will be all over that. I still don't fully understand why they dont just launch a massively salty snack at 100% of normal salt content. It would be even saltier tasting than Walkers ready salted which is just about as salty as a cup of the Dead sea. It's what customers really want

"The point of my post is to encourage people to do research into companies."

We are all busy people Persi, so why not just tell us what you believe you have found..? If you think it is noteworthy then other posters can check it out for themselves. So far you have made no point at all, other than establish a parent owns a subsidiary. Is that what you call joining the dots? It doesn't exactly encourage one to look further.

Agreed on what has been said. SP should rise - but the real fun is post-May decision. "Very substantial" in my book is a record- breaking award. That's how I think this will turn out on the maths

It is not a case of anyone getting cold feet as the TP funding agreement will have mutual tie in obligations as standard. And the lawyers will be v. happy getting paid come what may.

Is there any good reason why my post was removed....?

Scamp, it seems you have practically invented your own field of law with that jumble of nonsense! In case it isn't obvious everyone , I will say you really don't know how patent trials work at all. For starters, "Innocent until proven guilty" is the relevant burden of proof in a criminal trial (as everyone knows). It does not need to be shown that Samsung set out to deliberately deceive Nanoco. Samsung does need to show it has a different method of producing its dots, which are somehow different, and not covered by Nanocos prior patent claim. The Markman hearing should go a long way to settling such matters as it will decide the meaning and scope of Nanoco's IP. One aspect of the case where intent is relevant is consideration of 'wilful infringement' of the patent, which can lead to 3 x damages. That's a serious risk for Samsung if the basic damages are in the $500- $2bn range. I have concluded that Samsung have an almost impossible task of avoiding that conclusion given the long history of association between the two companies. These are matters of fact that any jury can easily understand. What this is not is a simple case where a company used tech that was IP protected without knowing it. Samsung knew the Nanoco patents intimately and if it is found that their dots breached Nanoco's IP then IMO there is no sensible argument that such breach was not wilful. A huge pay day awaits, and Samsung know it. They have got to buy their way out, don't they? The stakes are too high for it to fail.

Thank you. This really could be a very large award given the way a leading company (Samsung) deliberately used and marketed the tech to dominate its market. The simple point is that damages are not guided by past decisions so much as how much the guilty party has profited (on one measure). The facts around how it all occurred wont help Samsung much at all. I have asked my IP / Patent law buddy to comment.

I expect the share price to fall sharply [for a short period] unless there's anything indicative from the markman hearing.
---------------------------------------
Personally, I don't expect any grand update following Markman, or that it will decide much of significance at all, but any news that the case is continuing will be positive overall, despite the SP mark down on the day of results, when it comes. It will be a buying opp as we will have the same race up of the SP prior to the full hearing.

Th runt of the litter is actually doing rather well! I might even buy a pair for myself

False logic abounds in your post BTB!

1) How is the ST Micro proposition any different to all those that failed before?
------------ Did it fail?. Only if you can guarantee Nanovo dont win the court case

2) i can't see any rational basis for confidence in this. It will be a pleasant and unexpected surprise if anything materialises from it. If Nanoco had a revenue pipeline this wouldn't be such a binary punt.
-------------------- Ditto. Samsung was the revenue pipeline.! Did it infringe the patents? We have a series of court documents to read. The information is laid bare. Very much the opposite of a punt in my view.. Investors dont usually get access to such important info.

We've been done over

Yes Ecclescake. That's what yhey did, of course. Samsung is the naughty boy in the room time and again

To me it's clear. Samsung's whole litigation strategy is to encourage settlement at the valuation it wants Nanoco to agree. That's the value of its attempts to obfuscate and delay. It's poker with a losing hand.

Should have read:

I had gained a sense that people had been looking upon Nanoco's plight as a last ditch punt (very wrong IMO). Nanoco is far better placed than that IMO.

iangibbins - if it's any help, I've watched or invested in Nanoco for a very long time (period of several years) and I bought a large stake at Christmas on the specific basis it would rise on the back of this case - not because I am trading it, as I am not. It is simply because I expect Nanoco has a great prospect of winning, or at least the size of the award is very large and the risk not so big. I had sense placed that that that people had been looking upon Nanovo's plight as a last ditch punt (very wrong IMO), but Nannoco is far better placed than that IMO.

Nanoco publicly stated that the TP funders have agreed a multiple - that's a positive sign as if they had been in a better bargaining position they might have agreed to a percentage - (typically) 30-50% of the damages award. On the basia of a multiple we can expect it will be around 3x4 times the fees at risk. Guidelines only, so it could be anything, but 3-4x would be a good deal for everyone and no reason to think it is not how things would be stacked here. Personally, I take the presence of TP funders willing to risk $10m on a multiple as a very good sign. These boys usually only step in to rake it in when a case has a very strong prospect of success. I dont see anyone risking that sort of money on a turkey case, and if the case merits were higher risk then a % would have been appropriate.