Member Info for Intrusivethought

Welcome back.

Panel is made by Samsung Display.

https://www.wepc.com/news/msi-unveil-new-qd-oled-342c-gaming-monitor/

https://www.sammobile.com/news/samsung-is-in-no-rush-to-release-tv-w-oled-this-year/

You have no way of knowing whether or not negotiations re settlement are not taking place in parallel.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/investing/article-10840765/STOCKS-WATCH-Nanoco-winning-Samsung-battle.html

And Nanosys are full of s**t. They do not own 'their' key patents, merely licence them. Moreover, their QD production process allegedly infringes NNCrystal's proprietary quantum dot technology, namely U.S. Patent No. 7,105,051.

If infringing upon Nanoco's IP also, then they are in big big trouble.... existential crisis.

If it's not apparent from my posts, let me be clear, I f***ing hate Nanosys.... and Jason Hartlove is a ****y c**t.

Samsung signed a non disclosure agreement ffs

I respect Steckel a lot, but O'Brien (God rest his soul) and Pickett are in a different league. Their inventions re CFQDs are utterly groundbreaking.

Just my opinion... but I am right.

https://touchdisplayresearch.com/?p=5668

Now that Nanoco's IP has been comprehensively validated, I wonder if we might now begin to see some traction in the display market. It's possible I believe.

Apple was satisfied and the scale up and testing was completed successfully. ST must necessarily have been also. The 940 nm material is ready to deploy if and when required. I strongly believe the 'cancellation' of the project was essentially due to a change in the planned end-use component, thus a delay in the utilisation of the tech rather than an outright cancellation.

In which case the they be convinced Nanoco can produce QDs that are up to scratch. Jesus.

Jesus.

All the while opining that Nanoco's QDs/tech is not good enough, their patents won't hold up.....
You are not credible.

#fullofs**t

Of course. You remained invested for the litigation end goal before the litigation had even been instigated. That makes sense.

and you remain invested.

yes and then you remained invested. Go figure.

You forgot catastrophic asteroid impact event. Please continue taking the olanzapine, but you may reduce the dosage slightly.

The burden of proof that must bet met at trial is the relatively lower standard of the balance of probabilities. Basically, Nanoco must convince the jury, on the basis of the evidence presented, Samsung likely infringed its intellectual property and wilfully so.
From all of the information currenlty available to us I am very confident they will succeed.

They do not have the ability to mass manufacture high quality CFQDs. They claim to have licensed some of their IP for QD's to Samsung including for the production of CFQDs. This is total bulls**t and part of a smokescreen that they erected, in cahoots with Samsung, in order to disguise the theft of Nanoco's technology by the latter.

If Nanosys are indeed producing CFQDs then they are doing so by infringing upon Nanoco's IP. Hell it wouldn't surprise me if they're using Nanoco's IP to manufacture their cadmium based dots. The molecular seeding method is 20 times more efficient than the hot injection method.

#Nanos**t