Member Info for Intrusivethought

Indeed amerloque. Also, don't forget that Samsung conspired/colluded with Nanosys and announced a licensing agreement to give the impression that they were using Nanosys IP to manufacture their cadmium free QDs.

Very valid points Basscadet.

Oh yes of course, AUO were totally unware that Nanoco's QDs were not good enough until just prior to commercialisation. If that's the case then they are are in serous need of a product development process overhaul.

You keep asserting that the CFQDs that were to be utilised in the gaming monitors had performance issues. Please provide evidence.

Yes, some were released using Nanosys dots/film component. I don't think cost was the issue. Nanoco were very very close to commercialisation and cost will have been considered and accommodated well in advance.

The gaming monitors did not have performance issues. Please stop repeating this lie. It was the first generation CFQDs that exhibited relatively significant inferior performance. First generation CFQDs developed in close cooperation with Samsung and to their required (false) standard, no doubt. At the same time, purloining Nanoco's proprietary technology, Samsung developed higher quality dots for themselves based on indium phosphide.

Speculation, yes. But do not underestimate the extent of Samsung corruption and Machiavellian shenanigans.

I believe that.

What happened to the Dow QD factory? Decommissioned? Or perhaps Samsung purchased it, a pristine ready-made QD manufacturing facility; now that really would be rubbing salt into the wounds!

*Nanosys

You know this for a fact? As I recall, Nano were on the cusp with AUO. At pretty much the same AUO received a contract to supply LCD TV panels to Samsung Electronics. Low and behold AUO didn't follow through with Nano. Coincidence? Not in my opinion.
Furthermore, shortly afterwards Nanosys miraculously announced an ability to produce 100% cadmium free QDs. Coincidence? Samusung and Nanoco have been rimming each other for years at the expense of Nanoco. Bring on the court case where all will be revealed.

to my mind management are positioning for post patent validation and/or successful litigation resolution. A sensible approach.

FFS Gunderson, note SINCE INCEPTION OF THE LEGAL CASE. They're not going to reveal a product (a real feat of R&D might I add) to market whilst the underlying patents are at issue. Yeah just gift it to Samsung et al to rip off.

If I recall correctly, since the inception of the legal case it has twice been stated verbally, by ME and subsequently by BT(as CEO), that Nanoco have developed quantum dots that are "the best in the world". Green QDs superior to both Samsung and Nanosys (cadmium?) and red Qds on par with Nanosys (cadmium?).
It is conceivable that patent validation coupled with this superior product offering will arouse meaningful interest within the industry outside of the Samsung litigation/relationship.

Cannot be certain, but I doubt it. Anyhow, Nanosys are so full of ****e it's hard to know what to believe.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220428005522/en/Bready-and-Nanosys-Join-Forces-to-Launch-World%E2%80%99s-First-Barrier-Free-Laminated-Quantum-Dot-Film-Components

Hmmm.... no mention of 'heavy metal free', something Nanosys have been all too keen to highlight in the recent past.

GMT short now below 0.5% disclosure threshold or closed-out entirely:
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/data/short-positions-daily-update.xlsx

I agree Nanonano re under display face id sensor. Such a feature will not be feasible without a QD enhanced or InGaAs image sensor, the latter being very unlikely.

Teton actually closed-out their short position on 10 April 2014. The continued disclosure thereafter must have been an error.

Planned expansion of QD-OLED range; improving yield:

https://www.wepc.com/news/samsung-starts-production-of-first-77-and-49-qd-oled-tvs/

Amen!!!