The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
Hello giraffe I am just about to Increase my holding on the same basis. I like what I see and I don't mind the long wait to reach significant revenues as I really think the company is in the hands of very sound management and it is on the right track for achieving significant success. The tailwinds are good too. I can only put down the current share price weakness to global market conditions with small growth companies with low revenues- in particular - being totally out of favour with the market but that will change at some point. The market is generally impatient and I think it has taken the view that there will not be much news flow this year but I would expect to see something on the European front in relation to the last delivery mile market / smal EV's
And what's more, in calculating damages one CAN acknowledge the value of the future market as it has developed in reality even though knowing this would habe been an impossibility (the negotiation is hypothetical).
A certain poster thinks its a pointless waste of my time finding out about this stuff. ...... Gee whiz.......
And yet Samsung will know it when they came up with their offer AND Nanoco will have used it to inform their assessment of whether S's offer represents fair value.
N will not be forced to accept a pittance in damages if it goes to court and wins; and nor will it have to accept a measly offer in the negotiations. If that's the outcome of the negotiations then it's a strong reason for N to get cracking with the jury trial instead.
It's a trade off between whether N wants to have a shot at a $1bn + jury award (assuming jury award lumps together the historic and future), which would rocket higher with a large wilfulness multiplier, or take a discounted settlement amount to end it early now.
Very bottom line -
To avoid an uncertain result at trial (trials are never certain) there is value to be had on both sides of the argument to settle for a few hundred million dollars. I've not changed my view on this. I've said it all along and it's what is being played out behind closed doors somewhere in Texas now. I just hope BT does not get too desperate to settle and that S are shown the door if they try to knock down the future royalty numbers by too much.
"In my estimation this will be what Nanoco would have sold a perpetual, non-exclusive worldwide licence for in 2016. They would have been thrilled with £100m."
Gigs spouting his 'make it up as you go along' version of the law yet again. I have corrected him on tbks many times already, and yet...... he keeps repeating rhe same fallacy.
In a court of law rectifying the infringement via the calculation of a hypothetical 'reasonable royalty' (or 'what N deserves' as he puts it) is not arrived at by considering what N would have sold a licence for in 2016. That was at a time when a) the patents had not been validated (and there might be concern that they could later be found to be invalid; b) In its negotiations with Samsung N faced a possible trial risk against a tech giant if it did not take S's offer of fair value
The Pacific Georgia model is designed to eliminate any discount to the true patent value by reference to such factors.
Its worth repeating. Praise be, Nanonano:
Not low end, lower end. Important to acknowledge the correct language of the RNS to avoid misinterpretation.
“lower end of the range of expectations for a successful jury trial outcome”
The lower end of range was still many dollars per unit by the court dockets, still potentially many hundreds of millions.
Gigawit, if you are correct in your mental guesswork then the company has misled a lot of investors in the various announcements it has put out during the course of this litigation, and that includes Edison's output. HH is right about it all. If the company has changed its approach to what it wants from the trial - and from a proposed settlement - then it really needed to be explicit.
I think you overly rate your competence based upon your professional qualifications and associations. That impresses me little, because you have not consistently demonstrated an ability to rationalise and interpret things correctly. To make my decisions I use my mind and my powers of analysis, plenty of hard work in trying to understand the detail, and not a small amount of applied practical experience. I'd be in big trouble now for sure if I was following your example
Gigawit, make of it what you will you are the only person here that failed to detect any ambiguity at all. That reveals what an incredibly closed mind you have. I agree wholeheartedly with HH's sentiments on the matter.
Aint that the truth Barbon!
I have often wondered why RNS output should need to be deciphered as if one were approaching the Times cryptic crossword, but Nanoco's 9th January RNS really takes the biscuit. It's like the Oracle of Delphi.
"@Sammy88, Your post quote about GW 'If what you are saying is true, Gigawitt, you may have just made the greatest investing mistake of your life.' seems very strong unless you believe the share price is going to increase by several multiples of its value on the settlement and not return back down for the forseeable future ! Do you believe that?"
Screenlearner - There is only one person who has suggested such a thing who really knows and that is BT himself. Go figure.
Not you, Gigs so what was the point of your post exactly..?
Your own judgements have repeatedly been found wanting. You were wrong about PTAB, wrong about the prospect of settlement, wrong about the range of methods for calculating damages and potential outcomes, wrong about the principle of calculating a reasonable royalty in a US patent case, wrong about many other things concerning legal procedure (e.g. quantum meruit), wrong with your assertion that the RNS does not contain ambiguities. Need I go on....?
Invariably, you get it wrong whenever an informed and balanced judgement needs to be applied.
FH - I don't think a natural reading of the RNS supports your thesis that "Nanoco will be awarded at a discount to the lower end of estimates."
1. There were never any damages estimates given in figures; there was only value guidelines for the trial. So, the settlement figure is primarily a factor of sales. This includes future sales.
2. One must deduct a proportion of those overall sales on account of risk / benefits of an early settlement
3. Edison's figure was only ever based upon US sales, whereas the RNS refers to a successful jury trial outcome. BT has previously clarified exactly what this means. Either the jury awards a lump sum to includes future sales OR they award historic damages only, so that the judge is left to set his own future royalty rate.
There is plenty of uncertainty right now as to the meaning of the RNS (I choose to ignore Edison's interpretation) but my best guess (if not a firm expectation) is that the settlement amount is now being thrashed out by the parties based upon an agreed dollar $ amount for each display. In other words, N and S applied for the stay on the basis that they will now principally argue over how much of the future sales revenue (computed to earnings) N should receive.
Needless to say I get a higher figure than most here are expecting, but its a risk and I have enough of that already so not brave enough to buy more especially given the muted tone of the RNS - though I do agree it was never going to be the case that N would broadcast in a triumpumphalist way until it has concluded deal!
2Barbon Tue @ 20:33
Apologies if I'm missing the point, but isn't the distinction between an Income based and a Revenue based settlement founded on the basis of calculation, "
As I see it:
There were 3 damages models for trial, all revenue based. High, medium, Low. No-one mentioned earnings, but costs would be a deductible from that gross revenue figure in any calculation of damages. That's all that Edison are qualifying. One would think it is not going to be a massive proportion of those revenues given the low cost and highly scalable business operation. No need to deduct factory build cost as Apple paid for that already. It is just the cost of shift working, and in case of DOW, loss of license payment and royalties for their production
In reply to Nanogeddon"
"Thanks Reb0rb and BlahBlahDoh. Feeks to you concur with this? "
S were arguing at trial that N had a fairly broad and loose description of the patent but that N introduced limitation on the way it sought to defend validity. I would be inclined to let this rest for what it is - a legal argument for trial.
So, I don't have any more to add, except that I generally concur with what the others have said on this. There could be many reasons why a partnership would be fruitful for both parties. I have no particular insight into this though.
RNS 9.1.23[In relation to N's assessment of whether S's settlement offer is fair] ..... "The gross settlement value should be expected to be towards the lower end of the range of expectations for a successful jury trial outcome as previously guided by the Company"Note: Settlement 'value' not amount. I.e. It is the low-end damages model that will be applied to sales numbers (based upon the value of QD film). Why? It can be nothing else. The company has not given any other guidance on the numerical damages award.Note: 'Gross' means the total revenue value (to N) on achieving settlement before subtracting its production and other costs to arrive at an earnings amount. In its proper context I take this not to mean gross settlement for all existing sales combined with future royalties, which is how some posters have interpreted it.Query: "... should be expected".... What does this mean...? Does it signify that there is still an opportunity one of the higher damages models will be applied? If so, why has S made an offer which leaves this open? In my view it is simply saying that a gross ettlement value would inevitably tend towards the lower end of the scale because without this concession there is an unlikley to be a settlement deal which is agreeable to S.Edison - "Although the value of a potential payout has not been disclosed, we calculate that lost revenue in the United States attributable to the patent infringement to date could be in the region of US$200–250m OR MORE." (My emphasis)Edison:"While Nanoco has not revealed its estimates of the potential payout if the litigation is successful, it has disclosed three possible damages models for calculating the value of the lost revenue to Nanoco:¦ Top end: damages based on the premise that Samsung’s QD TV market in the United States is wholly enabled by Nanoco’s QD technology, so the value of the lost revenue would be derived from the total value of that market.¦ Mid: damages based on the premise that the QD-enabled display is a high proportion of the additional value of a QD-enhanced TV compared with a standard TV.¦ Low end: damages based on the value only of the QD film in the displays."
Another glimpse of the future
https://www.imveurope.com/news/firms-partner-develop-next-generation-3d-swir-camera
“For too long, industry has accepted 3D sensing solutions limiting the operation of their material handling platforms to environments not impacted by the sun,” said Ian Blasch, senior director of business development for Jabil’s Optics division. “The new SWIR camera provides a glimpse of the unbounded future of 3D sensing where sunlight no longer impinges on the utility of autonomous platforms. This new generation of 3D cameras will not only change the expected industry standard for mid-range ambient light tolerance but will usher in a new paradigm of sensors capable of working across all lighting environments.”
"Dr Stanley Yeh, vice president of platform at Artilux, concurs, “We are glad to work with Jabil and ams Osram to deliver the first mid-range SWIR 3D camera with the use of near infrared (NIR)-like components such as CMOS-based sensor and VCSEL. It's a significant step toward the mass-adoption of SWIR spectrum sensing and being the leader of CMOS SWIR 2D/3D imaging technology.”
https://www.biometricupdate.com/202301/researchers-develop-fingerprint-biometrics-and-liveness-for-under-qled-smartphone-displays
"Smartphones like the Samsung Galaxy, which use optical fingerprint sensors, could protect themselves from presentation attacks with this kind of technology, according to the paper."
It would obviously be nice to see some orders on the Apple AR/VR sometime in 2023. The name of the customer alone would stir a lot of interest even if initial revenues are likely to be modest. However the really big market will be smartphones, with Yole predicting $1/2bn annual revenues in just a few years time. That still some way off but when the market does comes they expect it will arrive with a bang. So whatever happens to display I shall hang around for that
Understanding this investment requires no particular legal knowledge. What it does require is a little bit of critical thinking, balanced judgement and an open mind as to possibilities. Your own bad experience of the court does not justify your near fatalistic view that N will now befall the same fate. Indeed N had good sense to opt for an agreed settlement when a fair deal was presented.