Member Info for Feeks

My "constant rhetoric about a “compelling case” for a multi-billion dollar settlements"

Yep Gigs, it is the genuine prospect (a $1bn+ jury award against S) which has forced S hand into making a fair value settlement offer for N's worldwide patents for all-time. All this at the sort of royalty level N might well have hoped to negotiate in 2016. Or else why did S make that offer now....?

For its part N has done a deal which offsets claimed patent value against trial risk with the added bonus of securing early payment.

You DO get this don't you.....?

Were it not for the risk of a high award (against S) N might have been ready to accept a really low-ball offer from S - if it got an offer at all.

I am delighted that we got this result, and piffle if you think my positivity on this share has let anyone down when the shares have nearly always traded below current SP, and ought to not go lower from here if we get the expected result N management have told us they are about to deliver.

BTW your memory of my posting history is A1 for someone who only joined the board recently!

" If the amount was ridiculously small they almost certainly wouldn't have accepted it, but if it was big they wouldn't have issued the second RNS."

Impossible to be sure BBD. I place more emphasis on the other reasons the 2nd RNS had to be released regardless of the other info it did contain. For me that extra detail is pure gloss. It does not lead one to a specific amount big or small, though I would expect any offer S did make which awarded N some of the future royalty stream might have been enough to pass the fair value test. S would surely not start the bidding right at the top.

Gigs I am catching up on the day's posts and I am now at 13:00 where you have steadfastly repeated your thesis that LOAM selling IS bad news and can only be bad news. There are always plenty of reasons for selling and, but usually, only one reason for buying. And whatever you say, LOAM have been relasiing profits at all sorts of prices, long before the settlement news arrived. That was an obvious liquidity point to realise some of their gains, almsot certainly pre-planned, and nothing can be read into it.

"The update on 9/1 was forced by speculation on internet forums, which means mostly here. As a result he market remained orderly so there's no reason to suspend the shares"
Gigawitt - And you say that is due to investors speculating. But that's only half of the story so think again

And

My slightly garbled post got more tick ups than the corrected one - 'nuff said !!

My last message was garbled in its haste (like the 6/1/23 RNS!). I''ll try again:

bliuerill, if you have read the board over the last few days you will see that nothing is self evident to anyone - a bigger range of views would be difficult to find anywhere. My take on matters is simple, and straightforward, and it excludes all reasonable possibility of dishonesty and underhand dealings, as that is rarely the explanation except on the Wild West of AIM. I consider that it is extremely unlikely that inside knowledge is the cause of recent volatility in the SP and the most recent bout of selling by LOAM. I would not make investment decisions on that flimsy basis as BT has shown himself to be been and honest, and trustworthy, throughout this whole saga. Privately he might admit the 6/1/23 should have been more circumspect as to final outcomes in tone and content. But I imagine that there was enormous time pressure to put something out, and plenty of sleep deprivation too.

I do not discount the possibility that the company wanted to put up a strong front to Samsung but that would have been a very grey area for the company to tread, particularly if it concealed N's secret ambition to settle at much less, and hence they did not issue any specific valuation guidance. I think that Samsung made an offer for fair value for the global patents - and for their lifetime - and that's what we will get. On that point, the company has been very explicit.

It is obvious that an agreed settlement would have to be at a discount on the true value of the patents, but to gain nothing for future royalties is a giveaway, not fair value, so that cannot be the final settlement agreement outcome.

I've got a pint of Guinness with BT's name on it when he brings home the bacon, and I expect to see many of you in Runcorn.

bliuerill, if you have read the board over the last few days you will see that nothing is self evident to anyone - a bigger range of views would be difficult to find anywhere. My take on matters is simple, and straightforward, and it excludes all reasonable possibility of dishonesty and underhand dealings, as that is rarely the explanation except on the Wild West of AIM. But it is extremely unlikely to be the cause of recent volatility in the SP and the most recent bout of selling by LOAM.

I do not discount the possibility that the company wanted to put up a strong front to Samsung and hence they did not issue any specific valuation guidance, but that's a very grey area for the company to tread, particularly if it concealed a secret ambition to settle at much less. Again, I doubt it. I think that Samsung made an offer for fair value for the patents and that's what we will get. It is obvious that a settlement would have to be a discount on the true value of the patents, but to gain nothing for future royalties is a giveaway, not fair value, so that cannot be the final settlement agreement outcome.

I've got a pint of Guinness with BT's name on it when he brings home the bacon, and I expect to see many of you in Runcorn.

LOAM sold because they didn't like the settlement news in the 6/1 RNS

Eh?
What was in the 6 Jan announcement they did not like Gigawit....? All agreed that it was great news.

"I think it's certain that LOAM, with all the knowledge, resources and experience of a Swiss bank had more realistic expectations of the outcome of the litigation than fanciful small traders, especially some of those who have appeared here in recent months"

To be fair Gigwaitt/ NigWit - that has been your perception throughout, namely that mere PI's cannot know better than the market; and at one time you even suggested it was pointless reading up on damages principles in US patent litigation ('Reasonable Royalties"), but then recently you posted something to support your thesis which shows you have not actually understood this at all. Your idea now that LOAM selling implies a cap on their valuation expectations is not borne out by the evidence, or else why did they not flog the lot in the 40's and higher when they had ample opportunity to do so?

NGR "Just the conclusion that we’d all be buying new cars and yachts might have been worthy of a reality check."

I never said anything of the sort. I do think the litigation value (both US and globally) was >$1m and nothing published recently rules that out. It is part of the reason I was admittedly bullish on the chance of there being an agreed settlement, which was not a conclusion reached by many others. The high value risk is Samsung's yardstick for a fair settlement. That is a key issue which has attracted very little comment on this BB so far.

Thanks Hawi
So then $150m gross which seems to be the low end ballpark guide for historical US sales. Metaphorically the jury is clearly now clearly 'out' on whether that will be the whole sum in terms of the final settlement. We all ave our opinions about what the deal value is worth, and what the company is intending to communicate. It does not strike me as a good time to sell but rather, a time to keep calm.

@ bluerill totally and utterly agree. Finally, some sensible comment!

Is there a single poster here who didn't think that a settlement announcement or trial award would not trigger substantial selling by LOAM?

LOAM invests and it also takes profit. To illustrate a point, On 11/1/22 Non-Executive Director Henry Turcan sells 5.0 million shares via Lombard Odier Asset Management (Europe) Ltd at 34.20 pence each, worth £1.7 million.

$5 per display?

Hawi
The lower end 75m sales number being what benchmark figure IYO when boiled down to a royalty per display

$5

My post @11:37 on 5 Jan:"No I think there will be endless angst by investors over whether N should have settled on whatever figure it does settle on, or whether it should have continued litigating. Me, I'll trust the Board to exercise its judgment wisely before celebrating wildly in the nightspots of Runcorn."Now where's that facepalm emoji...?

Gigwaitt - please would you like to explain your comment a bit further -
"The expressed purpose of the 9/1 RNS was to dampen speculation to prevent investors getting burned. "

Where does the RNS say that.....? (Clue: It doesn't)
And, why in your opinion do you think it was necessary to put out an RNS to dampen speculation, as you put it..?

"All we know is that it will likely be at the lower end of expectations"

We don't know that!

I haven't sold a bean - and don't intend to! At these prices it wold be ridiculous to do that now anyway. I did buy more at approx. 60p and 40p which in hindsight is a regret because I should have waited but the current share price is something I would never have predicted. Right now it looks as though we didn't win!

Thank you Sammy 88 for coming out of your self-imposed wilderness to clarify that. Runcorn production, such as it was, could have attracted a higher relative end royalty without the involvement of DOW (no middleman).

NGR, then we do appear to disagree on a fundamental point, and I sincerely hope that it is me not you who is right! Some will disagree, but others, I hope, will agree with me. I'll have to review my thoughts on it all. For disclosure I have still not read through a vast majority of BB posts from Monday, 9th January but will review all that soon with great interest.

To assist me, can I check everyone's understanding of what Runcorn can produce now (and historically) by way of revenues received - $100m pa? Would that not account for Samsung's demand in full, and if so, why would that lead to a huge disparity between earnings and revenue? Or was it expected that a majority of production would be outsourced to DOW, for quality control reasons, so that royalty received would be lower?