Member Info for FlyingHigher

Feeks I don't believe that

Maybe I do maybe I don't. I'm speculating like everyone else

NGR - thanks for sharing.
Troublesome- My strategy here is to await settlement and see.
I'm just being honest with my interpretation of events.

I agree STT, that's exactly what's happening here. It's clear as day and it absolutely stinks

Brian should just about have enough to buy his meal deal from the Runcorn Tesco Express I reckon. That's my prediction.
Have a great weekend all!

Samsung must know that dragging it out for years is somwthing NANO would want to avoid or they wouldn't have agreed to settlement discussions.

It's odd to me that Nanoco did.
It only takes the serious threat of a European Injunction to make Samsung squirm.
Nanoco are in the stronger position in my view, yet they're acting as though that's not the case.
Although I am frequently reminded that we haven't seen the offer yet and my statements are premature.

Mike was brilliant, we loved him. He was even more lovable than Brian.

Loam are dropping strong hints that they believe the settlement will be bad.
Brian has backpeddled suggesting he thinks it will be bad.
Prepare for the worst and be surprised if it somehow turns out good I say.

GBT - I find it amusing that you refer to Brian Tanner as Brian like he's a personal acquaintance ??, but I think your point about LOAM is bang on the money. They know how the settlement talks will be approached. Of course it's conceivable that they're derisking, but my assumption is they know more than us and don't have confidence to hold the same volume. We should at least note this is a point to consider in our risk assessment.
To brazenly disregard it as other posters are doing seems remiss.
I find it laughable that anyone should suggest I have an agenda or the ability to manipulate the share price or even other posters.
It may come as a surprise to those saying this that I'm actually just another poster on a forum expressing opinions and sharing my assessment of events.

How effectively could one manipulate the share price with posts on this forum though?

GirlyBrianT - I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, however I'm not sure we can attribute full blame for absolutely everything to Brian Tanner personally. This feels a bit too ad-hominem.

My view is the ability of Nanoco to have made money without Samsung is irrelevant in a patent trial.
Even if it were, the production line Nanoco had in operation with DOW would suffice.
The fact that failed due to Samsung's infringement adds weight to Nanoco's claims and should increase damages.
I think it was more rational to believe that the litigation was the cake and the sensing applications were the cherry.
I think your assessment of that is the wrong way round because the former has quantifiable value, the latter doesn't.
Those short-termers may have ignored you, the problem was they listened to BT, who guided on the settlement on numerous occasions - A fact you seem to want to ignore for some reason.
This can't be covered up, it's really disappointing as Lobo has said. Lobo by the way is a much more long-term, credible poster than myself in my view and has changed perspective based on the information available.

We can't rule that out either.
Samsung say they're willing to negotiate just to postpone trial, then sabotage the talks.
However the judge wouldn't look upon that very favourably for them in my opinion, so it might come back to haunt them.
The positive I take is at least we're absolutely certain Samsung have infringed the IP now.

Very good research Z-cars.
We did not expect such a payment to be indicated so low though and at the same time have our largest shareholder rushing for the exit.

TM58 - Due to the comment about lower end of the guidance. However we try to spin it and make ourselves believe the figure could grow due to global sales and future royalties, the only indication of the actual amount is in the statement that it will be an all encompassing figure at the lower end of guidance. That would mean $200m - legal costs & loans.
Speculatively $100m for Samsung's on-going use of Nanoco's IP is absolutely dire for the business.
It rules out any movement in the display sector and potentially erodes the credibility of Nanoco as a business.

Attractive at what price though bonzoful? Not £123m.
More like £50m maybe.

What case is there for topping up now? It's a stretch to believe the current market cap is justified on a tiny settlement and giving away our display IP. This could go down way below 20p.

A betrayal and breach of faith is exactly what we're staring at

GigaWitt - Define a 'ridiculous' number in the context of the enhanced revenue model

GigaWitt - How foolish it was to set expectations based on the models outlined by BT himself! How could we be so stupid!?