Member Info for Feeks

Gigs - Edison totally missed important lead content in the second RNS! It is plain why the first RNS had to be qulaified, and qualified it was

NGR. It sure was designed to cool the market !! Nanoco's first RNS had the potential to mislead investors and the company took urgent steps to rectify its error.

"and I might add one of the same group of constant pumpers who forced the company to settle the market with the 9/1 RNS" (Gigs)

There was only one reason why the 9/1/23 RNS had to be released and that's because the company created a false market in the shares when it put out its innacurate news statement on 6/1/23 which stated that a settlement was agreed and would be concluded to end the litigation. N failed to warn investors that there was a possibility of a different outcome, i.e no settlement.

Ha ha you know i've got you beat Gigs and you just can't take it.

You prefer to take the ambiguous RNS as read. LOL

If Samsung's case is hopeless, why have Nanoco changed from talking about Transformational figures to lower end figures extending the cash runway? 

FH it is strikingly obvious that until the deal is done it can only be counterproductive for N to announce excitedly to the world what a great transformatiomal deal it has reached. That's just basic negotiating.

TREVV i have not added yet

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

No mention of this for a few days. They sold what % of their very large stake - 25% ? They haven't sold out, which rather blows all the theories that were circulating here

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, you claim to have sold out even though that represents a 100% U-turn on your recently avowed investment analysis and strategy!

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!