The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Anyone got views on this subject. The Samsung money does not require much for current Nanoco investment etc. Anything less than £20m seems against all the rules...in all various ways. Just curious. BT denied any more detailed thoughts on the matter.
The twist may be that Tesla, and others, are benefiting from the high 70% silicon carbide efficiency created by St M. If so their production being less would influence more. Passing thought. Spring on the way?
Tesla's events have created a stir on the internet in the past, with Musk's dance moves at the opening of the company's Berlin plant in 2022 and an event in China in 2020 going viral on social media.
The company's plan to use 75% less silicon carbide vehicles without compromising the performance or the efficiency of the cars also weighed on semiconductor makers and suppliers STMicroelectronics (STM.PA) and Wolfspeed Inc (WOLF.N).
The reduction plan is "bad news for the whole silicon carbide production chain and in particular for STMicro," brokerage Equita said.
BT Oct. presentation 8, picture. QDs increasing% on main LCD TVs annual market, approx 250m/yr.
QD's TV (million) '21(20m);'22(48m);'23(52m);'24(74m);'25(105); '26(140m).....'30(210m)
QD % increases of QD share of total LCD TV market
2021(4%)..22..23(11%)..24..25..26(38%)..27..28..29..30(60%).
Sam % sale rate is 90% 2021: 50%, say, 2030 (New QD companies on the way)
2026: 140m less some not exact quantum dots products, say, 100m. Sam X 50%=50m. Patent $1-$10…. So??????
Patent royalties is the draft court issue - seems accepted by Sam. [Infringement(s) gone via appeal option, I assume]
Potential royalties after high probability of an appeal success seems would have been high.
Predicted royalties (one-off) now for draft not so clear??
That aside the planned increase indicates major potential for new Nanoco display customers. But, still couple of years+! As per.
Off for both my nuts. Bye, y'all.
Yep, I'm nuts. Quite a pleasant approach at times. Sadly you:
intruding
invasive
obtrusive
interrupting
trespassing
unwanted
unwelcome
meddlesome
meddling
interfering
busybody
inquisitive
prying
curious
pushy
nosy
impossible to ignore
high-profile
prominent
unavoidable
inescapable
disturbing
annoying
irritating
irksome
in one's face
personal
forward
impudent
impertinent
offensive
nosy-parker
snooping
snoopy
Opposite:
low-key
2.
Wish you well!
One year sales of QD TVs in 2026 is estimated at 140m. 38% of total TV sales. According to BT. (40or50 today. 200 + in 2030.
Samsung currently 90%, so maybe 70%. Therefore, 98m QDs. In one year. After appeal.
Patent @10$ (1% , or less, who cares)
Appeal had very high probability of success (one way or other!) - as BT observed.
And, we're talking/expecting/given a few million …. Confusion.com.
In reference to law, “no fault” is primarily used to denote claims that are adjudicated without any determination of fault. In a no-fault claim, the parties are not required to prove any party’s blameworthiness to resolve the claim. In contrast, parties to a fault-based claim must prove a party was at fault to prevail on the claim.
Some common uses of the term “no fault” in a legal sense include:
“No-fault divorce” is a divorce based on a showing that the parties had an irremediable or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage or had irreconcilable differences, and does not require proof that one party was at fault for the marriage’s failure.
"However, a settlement is likely to be based around lost earnings rather than revenues"
Infringement is about Nanoco lost earnings, not Samsung's. Patents involve Net Sales (NS, minus some bits and pieces). Net TV sales. I presume?
Shareholders lost a Lot of ?? via illegal conduct.
Organic is going to be equivalent to appeals. Some years.
According to proponents of this policy(Dividends) a company's Alternatives to paying out Excess cash as dividends are the following: undertaking more projects, repurchasing the company's own shares, acquiring new companies and profitable assets, and reinvesting in financial assets.
October Samsung earnings
Patents generally last for 20yrs
Samsung QD TVs have had very low earnings eg 2022 quarter - 18$ profit per TV. 0.25 KRW trillion earnings on 14.75trillion KRW income.
Increase in TVs going up 100m++ according to BT last presentation. 40m TVs, approx 2022.
So judgement for jury may have some speculation?
Edison, perhaps, predicting valuation is only for prospects ahead? Say, up to 2030.
So, Samsung prefer, it seems, only to avoid infringement and royalties (& China) versus their beneficial, persistent appeals.
Meanwhile Nanoco may have some doubts. Value of infringement from Edison style earnings from the past? How to assess future earnings. Organic, commercial earnings somewhat offset via 4 year expensive trials.
8 year average of, say, 80m TVs - with 2022 40m covered, breakeven - on, say, 50% margin, minimum…with double of 2022 $800m earning…8x$400m TV profit. 3.2B earnings. @5%payment max. $160m max!! Not good!
Infringement liability
"Make sure there is a real infringement and that the infringement is in a market in which your patent applies. In law, if a business infringes a patent, it is liable to pay damages to the patent owner, which will be based on the loss suffered by the owner"
So, 15 to 23/26 years (now or to appeal?) simply providing royalty to each TV?
Nought to do with earnings? "Net sales are the most common measurement for royalty payments. In a net sales license, the royalty rate is multiplied against the net sales of the invention. The most significant issue when negotiating net sales is what deductions should be included in the definition of net sales"
20m average annual for TVs sold since early start, say. (Above 50m today)
@10$ per TV (which folks mention). [Usually, 1% initially then move up to 5%] $1000 average net sales per TV @$10=1%
Thus, $200m/yr times 12 up to appeal. 8 otherwise.
Greater prospect for Nanoco challenge? Including Germany and China with injunctions.
Jury might observe simplicity of this. Net sales, as sold.
So, I presume, if liable 'based on the loss suffered by the owner', that BT is holding firm:)
Samsung observing some risk on infringement….So cancelling trial…they don't have much of a problem otherwise?
Lower shouldn't be too low, perhaps…:)
Samsung are getting it all:
No Fault Settlement, Historical one off payment$, with no forward royalties, "patent peace", no German or Chinese litigation, + lower earnings deal....???
BT has, I hope, been rather understating lower arrangement. Interest rates ... ?
Yep, agreed. That's the point. This, my personal view is that Board have made a balanced decision based on whether there is any real advantage going ahead. But, if it's all about some organic mood of the day or some concerns of others positions etc.,against our legitimate loss of earnings regarding actual legal matters...?
Well, we'll see.
Balance is good (enough). But, Board does service. It's not in 'charge'.
The argument against dividends is based on the belief that a company which reinvests funds (rather than paying them out as dividends) will increase the value of the company in the long-term and, as a result, increase the market value of the stock. According to proponents of this policy, a company's alternatives to paying out excess cash as dividends are the following: undertaking more projects, repurchasing the company's own shares, acquiring new companies and profitable assets, and reinvesting in financial assets.
Tailored funding solutions
As every claim is unique, it is essential that finance solutions can be tailored to best meet the needs of the stakeholders involved. Funding must work to protect claimants from the risk of escalating costs or adverse results – and must ultimately facilitate the smoothest pursuit of justice.
The worst-case scenario for a funder (as well as the claimant and a legal team acting on a contingency fee basis alike), is to fund a litigation that proceeds through to trial, ends in a successful verdict with an attractive judgement or award, but the recovery cannot be made because the respondent is insolvent or judgment-proof.
It wouldn't be appropriate for Mintz to give advice other than their own legal observations of the ongoing situation. Board must not be dependant on, or submit to, personal views of others.
Not sure what lower means when didn't get the jury's personal decision last week.
Samsung's TVs are China's biggest customer. Other relationships? Usually, Samsung just carry on appealing, year after year.
The jury decision does seem less than we imagined. Even 10yrs@$10b seems around 500m re patents. Infringement and royalties a bit more.
Looks Edison style max.
Visual Display Business To Focus on Premium Segment Leadership
The Visual Display and Digital Appliances businesses posted KRW 14.75 trillion in consolidated revenue and KRW 0.25 trillion in operating profit in the third quarter.
Overall market demand for TVs increased quarter-on-quarter in the third quarter led by improved seasonality, but contracted year-on-year, due to macroeconomic factors negatively affecting consumer demand. The Visual Display Business posted a decline in earnings, as a result of weaker demand, higher costs and unfavorable currency effects in some regions. Nevertheless, the Company solidified its leadership in the premium segment.
In the fourth quarter, Samsung expects market demand to improve quarter-on-quarter due to year-end seasonality, but macroeconomic uncertainties are expected to persist. The Company plans to utilize sales opportunities such as Black Friday and global sporting events, focusing on its Neo QLED, Lifestyle and super-big TVs. It will also focus on securing profitability through optimized operations and efficient cost management.
Looking ahead to 2023, overall TV demand is expected to remain stagnant, while demand for premium products including super-big TVs will continue to grow. Samsung will continue product innovation centered on premium products and strengthen its focus on sustainable, eco-conscious management.
TV market 250m/year
QDs 2021 20m; 2022 40m; 2023 55m projection
Samsung originally 90% QD. Now down a bit each year.
2022 40m x .8 = 32m Samsung QD TVs.
Income, say, $1500 per TV average?
Earnings, say, 20% so $300(profit) @5%patent=$15x32m=$480,000,000
Cut it in half? $240m in one (last) year. 3appeal years? Etc.
Anyway, I'm sure I got this wrong, as per.