Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/10/05/2528391/0/en/STMicroelectronics-to-build-integrated-Silicon-Carbide-substrate-manufacturing-facility-in-Italy.htmlSo is this - or not? - what Nanoco 70% silicon is about? 5 yr investment (as Nanoco noted) to 2026? St M were more than enthusiastic in a presentation a while ago about 70% Silicon and needing four contractors, apparently. Lot of silicon carbide competition on the go for electric vehicles. Can't leave things too late...for court appeal years? BT did make a humorous statement about when driving his car ...
Simple - or not.
Hawi said 10,000,000x$2000+ TVs sold.
$2000 @ 5% patent rule of thumb=$100
But(like Apple) patent doesn't cover whole TV. Just screen, say.
So, $100 divided by 4? $25?? (Apple by half)
10m X $25=$250,000,000.
Let's say another 4m sold since the original 10? BT mentioned 14m a while back. $100m.
So, now $350m
Now royalty etc. Say cover 6m (times 25$) TVs over time until the patent ends. $150m
So, $500m
Then Samsung avoids global…eg Germany, China etc.
Then, Samsung want to be totally innocent…are they involved with some US goings on. Read somewhere.
But … $500m to £400m
£100m to funder? More? Tax etc.
£250m?
Nanoco genuine organic requirements - not sitting in a boardroom. £150m? More than required!
33p 'divi' reward option for moi?? Standard company shares aside.
PS I'm old. Maths forgotten. Memory… but let's be clear. The patents are the legal issue and nought else. And, this is a legal case for those who were wrongly given what we were legally entitled to. It's not at all all about BTs organic desires. (And, I eat organic food every day)
I'm not expecting much more than 55p per share. BT mentioned that. He, also, was keener, on a question, to retain any 'oeganic' Samsung payment rather than set some of it to shareholders. I expect, if even modest, a reward option, too. Based not on shares but on Samsung wrong-doing for shareholders - none of us; no Boards. Even Lombard and HL are only shareholders. No difference. BT has his moral obligations. Has done them, so far. We'll see:)
Yep. It's the lower end of a particular, quite substantial, financial potential. That is presumably been agreed in the draft. It's not a give-in. It's a deal. The deal can only relate to legal jury issue.
If a deal suits BT for earlier organic work, but does not reasonably acknowledge the loss shareholders got on TV patents - then that is another (difficult) issue for N. Balance needed both sides. Organic prospects must indicate significant opportunities...fairly soon.
Apologies, Kat's:) TV & patents (income/earnings?) Is the legal issue. Can't see how it can be any different. BT observes these limits re settlement. So a Lower term patent percentage seems likely offer. Calculation on even 1% looks equivalent to Edison. Ok for me:) Main is a bit humorous. But, for us seeking annual pension 10% rises, Main market offers less risk (apparently) and provides a larger number of pension medium term options. Main not perfect, though. Transformational one day. Maybe. All good here for me. Best wishes
In 2020 BT estimated 14m Samsung N patent TV sales. Starting from 2015yr. So double that now-with increase? Cost £400 to £1400+ per TV. Rule of thumb for patent is 5%. So, projection possibly seen as such. But, a 'lower' seems now to occur. So 2%?. This presumably is what is 'lower' in term. [28m TV X £900? @ 2% ... For example]
No point in this settlement approach if Nonoco are not 120% certain Euro customer has pretty much already guaranteed significant production. Soon. And, others. If BT just hoping...not fair!:) So, come March presentation things better evolve, big time. Or, lost both sides.
'The Board, having taken extensive advice from its advisers in the case, has concluded that the draft settlement offer provides a reasonable and immediate fair value for the litigation.'
No billions over 4 years. But, Apple style - $1B; then all agreed $500m. BT can't give in - won't work. Others could have a go, as he worries. Reasonable shareholder prospects on balance all round. 'Fair' was the BT deal. China & Germany & US...Fair due, regardless. Not sure how Texas settles all those. Nano just saying we ain't all gonna be exaggerated millionaires!:)
Nanoco can't sit around for four years. Two large companies (and more on the way) need high volumes of products. They need, and BT Wants, organic manufacturing (and, quicker research). And, safe and sound break even. Just as they should. Some licence guarantees and some financial deal for full capacity are the facts. Billions?? A bit of a 'dividend' for us..ok.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. is the world's largest semiconductor foundry.
BT referring to the biggest semiconductor as his customer. Looks like Intel only slightly bigger one in financial terms.
Hope, BT hasn't made an error in almost naming.
https://www.kedglobal.com/foundry-business/newsView/ked202112130017
I'm sure all seen this odd article. I'm not around much!:)
Had been wondering on (very) vaguely similar approach via US. The Samsung appeal processes all seem like some absolute guarantee. Doesn't exist in real life. Anyway, will be interested to see the positive result (no guarantee, but high probability:) of the courts full financial Samsung cost on patent. Major pension-style companies (not the gamblers!) hopefully, increase their holdings. Bound to make a difference? Ciao
?? Examples of average royalty rates by industry are as follows:
Aerospace, 4 percent
Apparel, 6.8 percent
Automotive, 3.3 percent
Chemicals, 4.3 percent
Computers, 4.6 percent
Construction, 5.6 percent
Consumer goods, 4.8 percent
Electronics, 5.1 percent
Energy and environment, 8 percent
Health care equipment and products, 6.4 percent
Industrial goods, 6.4 percent
Machine tools, 4.8 percent
Pharma and biotech, 6 percent
Software, 9.6 percent
? 3.3% minimum
Would the funders prefer 3 or 4 years of appeals for large amounts (with no full guarantee) or get a decent amount via a more modest settlement approach?
Nanoco have to support Loam(?) But is 4 years good for them. Meanwhile, Nanoco carry on getting grants to (just about)maintain their superiority in nano products .... Etc
Samsung not quite the same dodgy illegal lot, I gather. Not sure but ...