Member Info for FlyingHigher

RUA are doing a bit of sewing on the side now. Anything to make a bit of money.

Next they'll accept a catering contract to deliver food to 1000 weddings.

Obviously undervalued, but what a boring update.

1 out of 2 hopefully! :D

I predict that Nicola Sturgeon will buy RUA with money from the mysterious black hole in Scottish public finances that she created. Her whole mission has actually been to use Scottish tax payer's money to buy RUA for herself.

That's my conspiracy and I'm backing it.

Hedge funds can make bad investments too though.

It seems like an odd time to invest as there are no visible prospects for the company. There's always the possibility that they know something we don't.

I doubt they do though.

There were funds buying MCLS before that went bust 2 years ago. I don't read anything into such investments anymore.

How are you defining the lower end of expectations stated by the company then?

The fundamental legal principle is that the parties should both be put back to the position they would have been in had a contract been agreed and then adhered too. That's not how IP lawsuits work. You're simply wrong.

You even stated a higher expectation yourself.

You're making a fool of yourself here.

Absolutely backed into an uncomfortable corner and yet you keep trying to spin your way out.

Patent trolls would get nothing if this were true, yet they do.

In conclusion, you've ignored my question about a settlement of $150m compared with a low end expectation of $200m and continue to suggest it's mine and others' issue for being disappointed.

You've then been quoted something that shows you yourself had higher expectations and you dismiss that. However you try to spin that point and you're excellent at spin, it shows you also thought at that time that the settlement would be higher.

Investors are right to feel disappointed, not that the rest of us needed any reassurance after a Major Shareholder clearly indicated their feelings.

I'm starting to think TerrorWit is actually Mike or Brian.

It's a direct quote TerrorWit! You've been exposed and you don't like it.

You should be disappointed, but you've chosen to carry on spinning the facts.

This won't help you or anybody else.

Yes there was an interview with Michael Edelman and Nanoco sanctioned guidance issued by Edison.

Now you're refusing to accept this was given, which isn't credible.

Do you accept that a settlement of $150m v guidance of $200m would be disappointing?

Kooba - That's amazing hahaha!

We all agree then! It's quite understandable for people to be disappointed!

(because Nanoco accepted $150m to be really clear)

TerrorWit - Let's go back to basiscs.

See the following statement from Nanoco:

"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."

How are you defining the lower end of the range of expectations for a successful jury trial?

The lower end of the lost licensing model was $200m, so if you accept this, the outcome was still disappointing (even after court costs) right? The gross amount is still $50m down on this previously quoted lower estimate.

TerrorWit - Nanoco provided the figures for the total revenue made by Samsung and the loss of license royalties. It was Michael Edelman who talked about $14bn of revenue made by Samsung. It was Edison who provided Nanoco sanctioned analysis based on the lost licensing model for just the US and no multiplier. The damage models were stated as the framework for any potential court settlement. So these are not forum fictions extrapolated. These are literal interpretations of the information given by Nanoco.

"had Samsung offered Nanoco £100m for a perpetual worldwide licence back in 2015 then Nanoco would have taken it without blinking. That is the only basis on which the appeal court would eventually award a settlement."

This is false.

The damage models are the basis on which the appeal court would eventually award a settlement.

Patent trolls get money and don't prove commercial viability.

I feel for any company who would have you involved in a commercial litigation if this is how you spin information.

I don't have any commercial litigation experience, but I'm capable of basic comprehension, which is all that's required to see how obviously Nanoco shareholders were misled by their updates.

This is a clear an obviously great buy!

I'm waiting for funds clear.

TerrorWit - you're repeating the same nonsense, which I have addressed many times.

The two models quoted by the Nanoco leadership were the enhanced revenues and lost license royalties models.

Both of these involved calculations for the affected US region at a huge premium to the final settlement.

It was clear that a settlement would be all encompassing, but to retain $90m from lost royalties of £200m-£300m (very conservatively and just in the US) is a huge disappointment.

The figure of £200-£300m had grown substantially since it was originally quoted - FACT.

It did not account for a multiple for wilful infringement - FACT.

It accounted for one third of global sales - FACT.

Do you think all these factors are fairly valued at $90m with an IP sale for most of that?

You're in a tiny minority who believe this if you do, yet describe everyone else of having an unrealistic fantasy outcome.

The unrealistic fantasy outcome was formulated from the guidance given by the Nanoco BoD.

We all accept that pre-trial settlements get smaller rewards, but it's the level of disparity between the size of the infringement and the agreed settlement that has upset just about every shareholder apart from you.

Terrorwit - you're on another planet with your baseless defence of the BoD. Explain to us what you saw in the transparency of the company, that somehow misled other shareholders, even leading to an attempt to replace the leadership from one of them. According to you, this has all been in our heads. This seems to have happened to everyone but you, yet you refuse to believe you're deluded. It's baffling ignorance and arrogance. You're an Ostrich with your head burried in the sand.

TwoGood2Die - you're absolutely spot on with your assessment of affairs. The bottom drawer it is if you can be bothered! People are now waiting to hear that STM have indeed walked off. There may be some vague update in October but we're all waiting for Nanoco to tell us the inevitable.

I'll be amazed if Nanoco go commercial with STM!

Vote for Mike! He was awesome!

Vote for anyone but Brian!

As long as our Brian isn't running the country, I'm happy!

I think we have to accept a formal sale process is likely at this point. The company has no clear direction.

Such a process could end favorably, it depends on the value any suitors can see in their IP, to state the obvious.

Nanoco is undeniably a dysfunctional, operationally incompetent company, but also has a very solid IP portfolio.

Does that IP portfolio enable another company to generate revenue where Nanoco has failed? Maybe.

QD vision was acquired by Samsung for $70m in 2016. They had a patent portfolio a third of the size of Nanoco's, but it's about revenue potential, more than numbers, so we can't accurately draw a comparison.