Member Info for Feeks

Yes, if N wins

"I just find it odd when Feeks pretends that commercialization is in the far future"

Are you quoting someone else because I certainly didn't say it, and this seems to be the root of my trouble. It is better to follow my words closely and not seek to import other meanings.

If N wants to be taken seriously as a potential supplier it has to be ready for production. That's the whole purpose of supply chain visibility and it should not even have to be said. Contracts do not become guaranteed, as you seem to imply.

Also, there is a chance that any initial contract will be in a niche area of commerce, and revenues small enough to come across as a massive disappointment. If N wins the litigation then all the awards which have been discussed as likely would be significantly positive to the current SP.

Emotion does not come into it. I am just correcting certain statements about what BT has told us. Contract orders may happen but everything rests on one source at present (ST Micro) and we are both guessing when their end customer(s) might be ready to launch, and since I admit I cannot possibly know about this I can hardly be right or wrong. But with the trial only 8 weeks away, that has to be the strong favourite as a likely source of 'new' news. My focus is on what I do know is happening, and overwhelmingly that means studying progress on the court case where there is a wealth of publicly accessible information. There has been no other update on possible contract news.

HH - yes because if S fails to get an appeal off the ground which it must do in a short window then S has to pay the ticket price of the litigation. (You said "I would say that Samsung in the case of a verdict against them will be under considerable pressure to settle.")

"Nonsense" and BT views "irrelevant"? Not my words. That's a classic strawman misrepresentation of what I have said Hawi. BT has told us all he knows and whichever way one cut its, yours is pure speculation over whether N will get a contract, when, and its value or BT would surely have told us more, don't you agree?

The most obvious example of why the market should not and does not give much value to this prospect yet is N's own history with Apple. It also quite amusing to me that anyone would give more emphasis to one inherently uncertain part of the puzzle over another especially when the other side of it has transparency in terms of what is being argued and has a definite timeline.

............ ctd....

It is within the range of reasonable possibilities unlike speculation over future contracts, which are wholly uncertain and so too the notion that order ‘visibility’ has the same connotation as a firm contract order. BT has not yet told us that there is any visibility of orders, but when he does I expect the market to start giving more value to the imminent prospect of production revenues.

Nanogeddon-
Others have commented below to effectively say they share my view that (right now) the litigation is key, and that view is not inconsistent with BT expressing the view that N's future success rests on the organic business. All that may come soon, but more likely a bit later, if it happens at all – again taking BT’s words at face value without adding conjecture and speculation. The graphs N produces for its presenter slideshows shows that the market for sensor tech using QD is only at the beginning. That IMO is why the SPO is now 40p not 10p. If it was not for the prospect of a successful result in the court litigation then we would almost certainly be back around those 10p levels because it is typical for private investors and institutional ones to wait to see whether and when there will be a contract, and how much it will be for.
NigWitty's 50:50 rating on the court case is because he has dismissed the idea that anyone other than a privileged few can ever hope to understand the case. I disagree but it takes plenty of work to gain a greater level of insight. I also place much higher value on the imminent prospect of an initial result from the litigation where the rigid timetable of a defined court process, and rules, guarantee us that will occur. Talk of a 2-3 year appeal process is also confounded by the same links posted by NigWitty a few weeks back, which put the timescale at around a year. It also misses the crucial point that S is not at liberty to run appeals endlessly simply by expressing that desire, as it must persuade a court that there is an issue of law that needs to be tried, and if the court decides there is no flaw in the decision-making process which requires re-trial or appeal to a higher court then that will be the end of it. S will always try but the court has seen it all before, as evidenced by the quote someone posted below from a previous case.
Any appeal process that does occur will not preclude N from gaining momentum in negotiations for new contracts and N may use a win at trial to add to the scope of current litigation, possibly against new defendants in new territories. At the very least N will be able to raise funds at a much higher SP level than it has done for a very long time: all of which helps the prospects of its organic business should there be slippage.
The harsh reality is that there is very little that one can say about contract news that has not already been said and so until it happens so I find it quite baffling that anyone would see talk of the litigation case as a distraction, or the numbers it might produce as fantasy land, when it is so near. Those numbers are based on tried and tested damages models and N is using those models in its pursuit of S in this case. It is within the range of reasonable possibilities unlike speculation over future contracts, which are wholly uncertain and so too the notion that order ‘visibility’ has the same connotation as a firm contract or

"The only sensible position to take with any legal case is to assume a 50/50 chance of success.".

To adopt the same sensible approach, one would need to finish the sentence "and to ascribe negligible value at present to the (as yet unrealised) hope of future contract revenues".

Hawi I am quoting what BT has said himself, and you seem a bit desperate to re-imagine it as something he didn't say. BT has been clear about his hopes for a production contract in 2023.

I have to say it is not my interpretation, or expectation. BT made a distinction between visibility and actual orders.

I am taking my lead from BT's actual words not what I wish he said. To the best of my knowledge he has never indicated hopes of a contract landing in 2022. I don't think anyone can reasonably expect it to be earlier than 2023 going from the public announcements. Gearing up for production is not the same.

I doubt it Hawi. BT's personal hope is not a contract order but order visibility. There is some way yet to go IMO.

Some comments below about Nanosys didn't age too wel!....

"We are pleased to partner with Fortress, Centerbridge and Kilonova. The commitment from these respected institutions provides strong validation of our business model, team, intellectual property and market opportunity'

Nicely put Amerloque, that does seem to be the argument put forward.

This article is an interesting read, especially the bit about DOE (doctrine of equivalents) which appears to give the judge a measure of discretion to protect patent owners from unscrupulous infringement in this type.of situation
Thati is good news generally as it seems to obviate the sort of case where there is a technical workaround. S strategy seems to follow the Warner-Jenkinson line ... I know they quoted some case law but its a while since I read over their submission.

https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/patent-infringement

Nanoco is not on AIM. And a good job too

Generally I agree, but now below its peak. In the past it was always congenial, and there was no sniping. I reacted because it was probably the 3rd or 4th side-swipe aimed in my direction, and I was fed up with it tbh. Such things are rather easier to ignore if it is not aimed in your own direction. I would not mind but for the fact that certain posts are intended to ridicule and question my integrity. Personally, I think it is better to show humility and be respectful and kind unless it is not deserved. I can make money being that way too! But it's the internet and apparently we should not have to even try! One can but try......

Sadly, you have proven me right first time. Please just filter me if it helps. The board used to be much better than this.

Ah well.......

My view too! It's a big point IMO, but of course it does not necessarily mean S case is easy to win if it gets the reversal.

Ps. NigWitty - sorry if you felt I went overboard in my comments last week, but you will I hope understand that when I have given up a lot of my spare time to research and post my thoughts here I don't expect to be belittled for holding those views. You have an opinion and I have mine and that's the way it should be so if you disagree please just say why without getting personal with it. Fair?

*things "differently" instead