Member Info for Feeks

I was referring to indirect criticism from NigWitty. Hawi I respect your opinions, and I hope you do mine. I would just like to see a return to a more collegiate board where different opinions can be expressed openly.

Sammy's entrance here is more recent but I find it incredible anyone thinks he has an ulterior motive, as indeed I think he has been very careful not to 'ramp'. But just like I do he finds the apparent market disconnect an interesting investment opportunity. He also happens to say a lot of things which I have been thinking privately for a long time but usually too busy post. Posting here does take up rather a lot of time. I would hope no-one has misjudged Sammy.

I appreciate NigWitty's views but my perception is that has been too intolerant of other people's opinions. I hope that this is not being too unkind, as clearly he is an intelligent and thoughtful person (but one who I suggest has had his perception skewed by being burned on a lot of personal litigation).

That's really it from my point of view, and so maybe I will stay quiet for a while too.

Henry - thank you.

Well I hope you aren't referring to me, as it doesn't accurately reflect the views which I have posted here. Indeed, I have also offered answer (indirectly maybe) to your point about why the stock is not trading higher. I would find it surprising if Nanoco was trading any higher than it is right now before winning a trial and before announcing commercial contracts because nothing is guaranteed until a win or settlement and of course there would be ready sellers not wiling to take any risks on the final outcome. Right now I'd say the low end damages award is barely priced in, and hopefully we all agree on that?

My other observation is that other would-be investors looking at Nanoco might find staking an investment on a court case too risky, and yet there are always loads of punters happy to gamble on O&G well results. In my opinion things are more transparent here than they are with that sort of 'investment'.

Yours is just one viewpoint - and remember that. It might be wrong or right. But ultimately no-one is going to be wrong or right because we are dealing with a range of possibilities at trial - and that is the case whatever the final outcome.

You have a strongly held view and perception that people here are 'gaming' for advantage but I really don't agree. Very few of the posts have ever come across that way to me - not compared to other boards. I do agree with you that the idea of holding S to account and punishing them for their past misdemeanours is not the way of the court - but this is just an expression of unfairness and hostile sentiment to S, which I do understand completely.

Punitive damages for wilful infringement IS still an important factor in this case. The idea of not studying that aspect of the case is strange to me because it is such a significant factor which supports the thesis that S will be strongly motivated to settle. I've researched that point and I expect N has a strong chance of proving wilful infringement. This leads me to think court damages will be over $1bn and I don't think that is stretching things at all. A settlement would be less than court damages - that's the price for N of eliminating its risk.

For the record I have been a consistent buyer not a seller of Nanoco over the past 1-2 years and an investor at various times for c.15 years before that. I have spent a great deal of time reading through the court papers too, and expect to do a lot more of that before September.

I did not state below that patent litigation is a non-civil matter. That point was laboured here previously even though no-one disagreed. The important point is that this case does not involve breach of contract and to be clear, those were my words.

Equally, Sammy has not suggested that N will win billions - but they might do.

No-one would object to cautious investing as a rule but I don't find the case against the possibilty of a larger award in this case very convincing and that's what we have been discussing in a polite and reasonable manner up until now. Let's stick to that folks as this bulletin board has been a breath of fresh air unlike so many others on LSE.

Agreed FDred - but that was deliberately chosen by N. In my opinion it is S problem because the simple 'narrative' which anyone can understand favours N in this case

Nigwitty, you said:
"I'm in the dark about the relationship between Dow and Samsung. I have often wondered why Dow aren't a party but perhaps they settled privately with Samsung or came to terms in combination with other business. Either way I can't see the court giving Nanoco money that would have gone to Dow."

There is a simple answer to the DOW question. DOW did not (so far as we know) have a contract with S to build the factory and neither do they own any IP which has been infringed by S so they cannot litigate.

You prefer to approach the question of damages with caution as do I - but my reading is that you would rather dismiss the potential for a higher award far too easily and would wish to convince others that this result is highly improbable. But why? I think we should trust the lawyers to get this right. For example, you say that you cannot see a court awarding damages above what N would have earned on their contract propoasal, but to be clear, the court absolutely can do that (and suggesting this is an unlikely outcome really is the sort of speculation of the kind you are seeking to dissuade others from making).

It is important to emphasise (as Sammy has done) that this is Patent litigation not civil litigation for breach of contract, so different legal principles apply.

It is an enormously significant point that S neatly avoided paying DOW anything at all by committing their infringement (if they are found to have done so). It is not "punishing" S to suggest that N should share some of that profit. The opposite is true. S would be unjustly enriched despite losing the patent trial with no liability to DOW.

An element of punishment does come into the reckoning but that's what the prnciole of wilful infringement is for.

BeContrarian yes exactly - RoHS has been an existential threat to all products based on cadmium QD supplies and this is a key point for how the non cad QDs produced by Nanoco would have been priced. I think N would have been asking for quite a bit more than the low royalty numbers we are using in some of the more conservative computations now. That small point makes a big big difference when the enormous scale of the worldwide sales is factored in.

Sammy you said, "Look at it from Samsung's perspective. Their lawyers would tell them the maximum damages could reach $10b and there is a 10% chance of this occuring."

I could not agree with you more except that for anyone here to put a % chance on it happening is pure speculation. Statistically, the fact that something may not generally happen (multi billion dollar jury awards) does not mean that such an occurrence has a low probability in this case. One can be sure the lawyers on Samsung's side will have laboured that issue front and centre in the advice they have given to their client - after all it is an important part of their job as professional advisors to advise on potential outcomes or else they carry the financial risk of that same outcome on their own PI insurance. That may well be the opposite of what the market is currently pricing in right now for Nanoco stock but the market price is going to be wedded to the base case and history of IP damages awards. This is what investors think is reasonable and sensible to expect from an investment perspective - but that alone doesnt t tell us anything at all about rhe lilelihood of a surprise to the upside at trial. My own investment strategy is based on that disconnect. I believe that privovided that N qctually wins the trial (or there ia a settlement) N is either still very cheap or the bargain of the century.

Each case will be decided on its facts, and the range of possibilties here could lead to a very high damages award. It is ultimately just a mathematical calculation with a bit of finger waving to get the right figure. To my mind a simple low royalty is not an argument that will seem persuasive before a jury.

It has been said below that S could have sourced cadmium containing dots from elsewhere but they chose not to do that, and so it is too simplistic to say the price of those QD is set by the alternative price of QD which S did not want to uae. The cad free nature of N dots was one of the factors which S exploited in its marketing and corporate PR - and S presumably didnt want to risk massive capital expenditure on technology which could have been defeated by RoHS. Through the exploitation of N tech Samsumg partly created (but not wholly) a new product market which it has totally dominated. I see this as a decisive factor when the damages award is computed at trial as S could have paid a much higher price for those Nanoco dots - and ought to have been willing to do so - whilst still being able to rake in massive profits.

The law allows for a damages model which gives N more than a basic royalty. In cases like this where it can be said the stolen technology facilitates and drives the market. No specualtion is required because that is the case Nanoco and its highly professional lawyers have put before the court.

https://nofilmschool.com/could-quantum-dot-technology-replace-cmos-sensors

Interestingly, Nanoco gets a worthy mention.

Thought I saw the latest figure quoted somwhere was 15m displays sold in US . What is the concensus here?

Retaliation and spite? And yet plenty of posters have not commented towards you. But you are now going to spend all your time trying to trash the share price anyway? Purely for that reason. Really?

Aqc88, you are here to de-ramp in the hope of profiting from loss of investor confidence for TEK in a market downturn. There is really nothing else we need to know to explain your sudden appearance and incessant posting.

As others have pointed out the company name you were searching for is ‘Guident’ not ‘Guidance’, but what’s the importance of such an elementary mistake when the facts clearly don’t matter! If you have not spotted anything good in the TEK portfolio, then it seems you do not have the sort of balanced approach needed to be a successful investor.

Sammy your views reflect my own exactly. I believe an award of damages set by a court will be very large. I've previously estimated $1-2bn which was meant to be slightly cautious, as I agree with you that it could be plenty higher.

Samsung's major branding of QD is the issue. It is the differentiator and that's how it will look to a Texan jury. Knock off some of the £15bn or so revenue for production costs (deposition etc..) and marketing. But even giving Nanoco 10% of the market value uplift (surely no more than fair?) makes the market estimates a long way shy of what is likely to play out at a successful trial.

Totally agree. No-one can argue with the way the numbers multiply out, even if it is a low end royalty.

If the market thinks that way I will be expecting a large swing to the upside when all this is done

Today's RNS is exactly in line with my views when posting below. A good company facing aome exceptional market challenges for the immediate future.

It is very good of you, to say the least.

I note that you chose not to post the Order relating to lunch expenses for Jury members! You might be missing some crucial intelligence with that one!

Thank you Hawi
I assume you are paying the $ fee for each download. As I recall I think I subscribed for Docketbird udpates but they still charge a fee for each download, is that your experience too?

Great to see the smaller PI's rewarded for their loyalty. 10 out of Tenner