Member Info for Feeks

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.

"
If you think you know more than I do regarding how litigation works you should buy more shares tomorrow but from where I’m standing I’d say the sum total of the legal knowledge here today (excluding my posts) is zero to the nearest decimal point."

There you go again with your confirmation bias.

"I have litigated in business about twenty times, spent about three large houses worth of money on legal fees and been hired to advise some top litigation firms"

I recall NigWitt once boasted of having exactly the same litigation experience. You guys should get together........

Why on earth did you come on this board pretending to be someone else? That's odd behaviour, wouldn't you admit?

Gigawit/ NigWit is claiming intellectual superiority in this debate due to his considerable experience of having suffered at the hands of lawyers and opponents in a long line of failed litigation cases. But as my father used to remind me, you can send a lettuce on an all-expenses paid trip around the world, but it still won't come back as a Professor of Geography.

Its a weird investment philosophy Gigs when you are forecasting near term catastrophic collapse in the share price. How many years do you suppose it will take to reach $250m + valuation in pure organic growth?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K703ZT-71lc

Technology is "really compelling for image senaing"

Does anyone know what supervisory powers the court exercises in relation to these matters? The RNS implies its more than a rubber stamp job.

Peel Hunt called it a "very conservative" estimate of a trial award (= hundreds of millions). They don't even factor in a wilfulness multiplier, current or futue sales.

Keeping fingers crossed that Brian Tenner didn't have to give away too much of that for the settlement.

"In a note published last year, broker Peel Hunt said any potential award from a ruling in Nanoco’s favour was likely to be “in the hundreds of millions”. Assuming a “very conservative” award of $10 per TV, the 26mn TVs Samsung sold using quantum dot technology since 2015 translated into a $260mn (£219mn) claim on lost revenue, the broker said."

The 9/1/23 RNS backs up your point Sammy88. Richards said:

"The Board, having taken extensive advice from its advisers in the case, has concluded that the draft settlement offer provides a reasonable and immediate fair value for the litigation.... etc."

This seems to be referring to the current litigation, in other words S has offered an amount to settle THIS case. The first two considerations appear to refer to the instant case 9nly as it does not mention any other ongoing global litigation, or prospective litigation. That comes within the final considerationo. It alludes to further negotiations being required before the final agreenent is struck which is something also referenced within Richards' comment -

"Whilst there is still a degree of uncertainty around the final settlement agreement, we are working with Samsung to finalise the detailed agreement"

That's a good point Sammy88. The BB grumbling might well turn on its head here if the settlement reveals a "big" pay off for N (the term is not sufficiently well defined in this litigation but for sake of argument call it anything >$200m).

If that does happen then I expect there will be complainers who say they were misled into selling. BT will be able to say truthfully that investors have not been guided to expect any particular result in the last RNS, and he would be right. The same thing though cannot be said about a low settlement amount given the content of previous company guidance.

"It’s possible Nanonano. My doubt stems from the underlying young legal principle that a litigation shouldn’t put the parties in a better position than they would have been had the infringing act never taken place. That’s why I fall back to the quantum meruit basis, which seems to me to click with the company’s announcements."

This is where your total and utter ignorance come to the fore GigW (and yet it doesn't stop you posting).
UK contract law principles don't apply because, surprise surprise this case is in the US litigation and N and S did not have a bleedin' contract. It is PATENT infringement litigation.

Before you post again try looking at the Georgia Pacific model of what constitutes a reasonable royalty. It is not limited to what licence fee N might have negotiated in 2016, as you previously posited.

Your output has been garbage for weeks now, which is strongly redolent of someone who sold and who now wishes to take down the share price

HH I think you talk a lot of sense. Earlier you said,
"there should never have been two RNS but only one."

Why do you say that?

Nanonano I am reposting your comment 13:24. It's just about the first sensible post of the day!

"Far too many posts on here making statements on settlement amounts like it's a fact, when we don't know anything at all.

As far as I'm concerned the final figure should be in the hundreds of millions not tens as some are speculating.

The latest Edison statement reiterated the $250m figure for historic US sales alone. Even if you halved that and then tripled it for worldwide sales, plus future projected sales, all these low ball figures just doesn't resonate with me."

What GigW seems singularly unable to grasp is that the settlement figure is not a proxy for the litigation claim value.