Member Info for Intrusivethought

II-VI group of elements includes cadmium. Intriguing.

I'm sure he referred to the PTAB outcome as being the first inflection point. Might be wrong though.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

As you wish. Hopeless.

The same person that claimed LG's QNED TVs utilise quantum nanorods.

That's Nanosys' argument to maintain ROHS exemption, not the the main reasons for OEMs integrating cadmium QDs into their products over cadmium-free.

Samsung have never released a product containing cadmium QDs. Also, the main arguments supporting the use of cadmium were cost and performance in terms of quantum yield and FWHM.

RE QS, I cannot find a single patent filed, let alone granted, for their lead-free QDs. Still in early development then, I guess.

Wouldn't rule it out.

Those Press Releases and the like are a load of ****e.

https://displaydaily.com/qd-oled-and-miniled-tv-shipments-growing-with-27-5-cagr/

20.

Nanonano,1% of sale value would not have been unreasonable at all, given the significance of the unique cad-free component.

Samsung Elec continue to position QLED as their flagship even though it is inferior to QD-OLED, precisely because the margin is so large.

Go to school..

WTF have you been smoking? QLED is not QD-OLED.

Wrong. Qled is very profitable.

You're an idiot.

Good luck with that.

There is a good chance that the lead free material for sensing is composed of 2d materials. At least one of the relevant patents explicitly states that the use of 2d enables superior performance and all without the use of toxic materials such as cadmium and lead.
Again, just my opinion, but the litigation and its resolution was more than just about a payment from Samsung.