Member Info for Intrusivethought

WTF has this got to do with the face-id infrared sensor?

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2022/06/14/business/tech/Korea-Samsung-Electronics-LG-Display/20220614182918263.html

That Samsung Electronics were going to use LG OLED panels was total B S from the beginning. It was never going to happen. It was all theatre, in part as result of Nanoco throwing a huge spanner in the works re their strategy with QD based TVs.

My guess is Nanosys re LG QNED.

https://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/sustainability/environment/eco-conscious-products/

Read section titled 'Environmentally sensitive substances in all products
are strictly managed To make them safe to use'

Absolutely Nig.

I agree that they will make such an argument, but it is tenuous and won't wash with the jury imo. Samsung will have to explain why they chose to forgo the the superior performance (and possibly lower cost) of cadmium dots in favour of CFQDs. Also, by arguing that they would have used cadmium quantum dots as an an alternative would not be consistent with Samsungs's own environmental policy and commitments, the very same which prompted the adoption of cadmium free in the first place.
https://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/sustainability/environment/our-commitment/eco-management/

https://news.samsung.com/global/why-are-quantum-dot-displays-so-good
https://news.samsung.com/uk/quantum-dot-artisan-dr-eunjoo-jang-samsung-fellow#:~:text=Samsung's%20quantum%20dots%2C%20however%2C%20are,Institute%20of%20Technology%20(SAIT).

These are just two examples of Samsung expounding the environmental virtues of cadmium-free at every instance when referring to their quantum dot displays. It was a key facet of the marketing of their products. Whether cadmium dots exhibit a superior performance or not is irrelevant; Samsung made the business decision to pursue and adopt cadmium free dots in order to claim the above.

It was in a presentation circa 2017 to 2019, which has now been removed form the website. What I can remember is that 20 times more dots are produced per batch than the hot injection method. Also hot injection cannot produce high quality uniform CFQDs at scale.

That's all i have troublesome, sorry.

Hence why I query whether Nanosys have been using the molecular seeding method to produce their cadmium dots.

Their marketing in various media did indicate cadmium free. Moreover they actively chose to pursue cadmium free when a cadmium alternative was available. Indeed, Samsung proclaimed itself a pioneer in cadmium-free and publicly took credit for solving the hitherto problematic/impossible scale-up of CFQD production.

Further, contrary to popular belief, the scale-up of the hot injection method to produce the quantity of (cadmium) dots that Samsung will have required is very costly. Recall that the molecular seeding process is 20 times more efficient.

What they will be seeking is damages wrt the German market and an injunction prohibiting the sale of infringing products, the latter in order to pressure Samsung into a negotiated global settlement.

Again, they will not be seeking any US awarded damages (punitive or otherwise) in the German court or any other jurisdiction other than the US.

They cannot and will not be seeking punitive damages in German court, nor foreign damages.

Sigh... yet again. Google makes everyone a lawyer it seems.

As I have posited many times previously.... next stop Germany.

https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2022/05/16/lgs-recent-infringement-fight-tcl-take-tips-divxs-approach/id=149033/

https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20220610PD200/qd-oled-samsung-display.html

http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=94204
Now why oh why would they not want to?.... I wonder... Not.

Accumulating IQE.

Well, Kirkland & Ellis lost 47 - 0 at the PTAB.

Screw that. Go to trial. Win. Receive a wilful damages award. Use this as the premise for any settlement negotiation.