Member Info for Intrusivethought

So you're invested?... *******s.

5 yrs min

Whatever they see fit. I hold and will continue to do so.

I'm here for the long haul my lambs.

Of course.

EL QDs, being solution processable, have the potential to confer display performanr on par with microled but at orders of magnitude lower cost. Given their patent portfolio, it is inconceivable to me that Nanoco have given up on display.

Superior Patent backed CFQDs. Patent backed 2d QDs/materials for both display (photoluminescent and electroluminescent) and sensing.

Absolutely Nig, I'm with you there.

Yes the consumer market will outstrip vehicle by some margin.

yep. andinto the conventional camera on the front and rear to produce higher quality images. Apple purchesd Spectral Edge Limited in 2019 for this purpose.

Correct Nig.

If the tech makes it way into the iphone, then demand will explode. It will be used for more than face id.

Bloody hell. AR requires IR sensing.

lol

Let's hope the company haven't made thickies of us all!

Yes correct, but it is their place in this litigation settlement (a litigation they are not directly a party in and Nanoco did not seek to reintroduce) that puzzles me. Again, it is pure speculation on my part.

Manufacturing panels for third parties is Samsung Display.

Shoot me down, but I go back to Samsung Display again. QD OLED is the absolute cornerstone if their large display business and will be for the foreseeable future. I find it incredible that they wouldn't be interested in Nanoco's superior performing and less toxic dots at some stage. Dots that require patents outside of those being litigated.

Indeed Hawi. *******s.

LOAM knowing the minimum acceptable figure would be insider knowledge also so illegal.