Member Info for Feeks

“in a very real sense the $500m we have heard in some reports is a product of speculation by some investors interpreting of inferring from Company statements”

It might be more, it might be less. No more predictions from me. No-one truly knows. We haven't been told but we will find out soon.

Flying higher those predicting $30-50m exhibit poor judgement. That's why they also hold.

"If there's any visibility at all the market will always get there first. That is why careless predictions of a risk-free multi-bagger were always absurd.."

Alas, but now we shall never know GigW - that must be a source of immense frustration for you!

Add Gigw to the same room as NGR. He's living on a different planet.

Add NGR to the same room. He's living on a different planet

GigaW are you serious....?

"Calling the settlement was not a big deal since most cases settle"

"If there's any visibility at all the market will always get there first. That is why careless predictions of a risk-free multi-bagger were always absurd."

Gigs - so why in your esteemed view did S see fit to offer fair value for the global patent rights .....!?!?!?

Gigawitt, on 8 Jan you posted:
"You can make a legitimate case for whatever numbers you like between nothing (and everything on future royalties) to a billion pounds. Obviously most commentators will be subject to motivated thinking so they’ll give the biased numbers they want.

We just have to wait and see, which is the hardest work of all."

$1bn was 'legitimate' that day according to your good self. Care to comment?

Not too sure where you are going with all this itsamaybe....?

Yes BeC . Oh the irony

Signs of an impending contract win with near term organic revenues (albeit small) would of course be a potentially good reason for management to take the Samsung money and run.

Nanonano-
St Micro only ever seem to talk of lead sulphide QD CMOS swir sensors. Would it be normal to be keeping new breakthrough tech under wraps like that?

"Does anyone here think BT or ME would publicly say figures that were anything other than at the high end? We’ve all sold a second hand car right? At no point do you start with what you’d accept."

NGR - misleading the market in such a way would be a grave misstep (D&O duties considered), so I personally doubt it. Officers of the company either speak their mind of the truth or say nothing at all.

We both like to share our views which always differ and almost never coincide. Runcorn is the destination for drinks and laughs.

I am closest to HH with the views he has expressed as to likely final settlement amount but prefer to leave that bit of calculation to others in the main. A low end royalty of $10-20 was once quoted in the mix, so why is $5 now thought to be a more reliable figure - is this just pure caution after the Monday RNS? Either way it is a negotiation and we can expect to see a large discount on those future royalties.

in

BBD -maybe I have been unclear, or quite possibly I am on a totally different page to everyone else...... Your comment still leaves me slightly unsure what others actually think, but I can probably guess what is the majority view. The SP tells me that. Reading Monday's board will give me a better insight into investor sentiment as no doubt a range of possible meanings would have been on show as the news was dissected that day.

I promised myself that I would back my own judgement on this case, and that's what I will keep doing. I am happy to elaborate on my views in greater detail, but I suspect that I will have it won't be today. Maybe I will even buy a few more shares first!

troublesome, so where's my moderator...?

buzzzfluuderjohn
There are two entries for HL:

1. Hargreaves Lansdown Stockbrokers Ltd. 40,623,811 12.6%
2. Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Ltd. 15,583,000 4.83%

Someone will know better than I, but I would think that your comment relates to no.2, with no. 1 being nominee accounts including my own holding.

GigW
Your narrative on the events which have unfolded before you is almost entirely wrong (IMO, of course). Nanoco reached a settlement for those reasons. What else made S offer fair value for the patents, if it was not the risk of being penalised by a harsh damages verdict including a wilfulness punishment? You don't seem to be able to answer that.

You also seem to have a polar view of these matters by perennially excluding possible outcomes, and have shown relish in a sliding share price as if it were some sort of personal victory. However, there is another side to this and this time it does not require an understanding of the law or court processes in US patent cases. It only requires close inspection of the company RNS output and a bit of critical thinking.

Even now I would say it is important that you do not prejudge the outcome of the final settlement - it is not certain what it will be! I would disagree with anyone who says it can ONLY be a figure at the low end. One might say the company is steering us away from the views of any market 'analysts', which includes Edison. If you take their latest settlement update note then arguably they have incorrectly interpreted the full meaning of the company RNS output with potentially disastrous results for those who pay heed to it. If for some unknown reason they do have some other info that the rest of us don't, then that's a wholly different matter.

Personally, I am not betting on any specific outcome but I am fully expect it to be a good one for this company and its shareholders. We will just have to wait to see how high that takes the share price.

Hi Troublesome. I find that very hard to believe. If true, it must be a very long time ago. I certainly don't recall ever having agreed with NigW general views. I sincerely hope his profound negativity towards this company's litigation propsects hasn't caused too many to sell their shares on the cheap.