Member Info for Kooba

Perhaps doing lots of work..and if my aunt had…….

You can keep calling it an unexplained win …an explanation from the company will be fun talking us through this one.

Basically saying that Nanoco needs Nanosys patents to execute the sensor strategy they have been committed to for years…does that sound like a clever plan??

We were told through CFQD platform and Heatwave IP that covered our focus on sensors , you are suggesting that is not the case and we were prepared to pay a high price ie unrestricted use of our CFQD patents to get hold of it.

Does that add up in your head??

Does it not make more sense this is a backdown and fold ..if not why not ?

What BS …all you do is “interpret” everything with your rose tinted specs and lots of hope , that is why you are always wrong.

When actually asked to explain your posts…nothing…

Very boring puffer ..with no substance.

Only a few posts ago…you say this stuff…stand it up for once.

“The litigation asset had value.

· That value was realised in a cross‑license.

· That cross‑license clears Nanoco's path in sensing.”

How?????

You have said that it demonstrates the value of the display…how? Simple question.

But how about answering my questions …you are saying what a great deal it is freeing the company in sensors….how and why ??

You going to wait Terry?? Then stop posting this guff!!

All speculative based on nothing.

“We have 30 days for a reason. The confidential part of the term sheet matters. Royalties, patent sales, reciprocation mechanisms — all of that takes time to structure.”

oh grow up terry ffs.

such a utter *******.

Question time then

Why Terry do you think we need access to Nanosys IP around sensors …something never mentioned by anyone ever.

Why is this of any value for Nanoco shareholders when we have our own core validated platform technology and have worked exhaustively in sensor applications?

Dont wait just read the response i sent.

I think bugger all on top of the material IP share “no further consideration”

Likely no non compete in sectors.

No offer , no IP sale ,no royalty all of which would be against the clear rns.

I have said a number of times i think they are merely working on the exact terms of what is involved IP wise and what exactly device wise is being carved out for this agreement which will not be disclosable…anything financial would have to be disclosable as it would be price sensitive.

You clearly think that Shoei will bestow huge wealth on the shareholders of Nanoco for some reason on top of the IP share arrangement , something that is not supported by their release.

I dont know why you think this apart from wishful thinking which to be honest is the only thinking you ever seem to do.

You thought the litigation was not a risk but a wonderful opportunity for Nanoco to crush Shoei and make itself far more valuable , that it was all totally to plan and a brilliant strategy and that Shoei could go bust over this action.

Now we have the litigation risk has gone.

Whoopie ..take that to the bank and cash it.

What’s left £10-12m ( a £4m cash burn) some development work in sensors which may or may not lead to some commercial adoption over the next few years..one early JDA of the large 2 we are working with comes up for next phase next month.

.But now we have little hope of getting anything further from multiple parties we thought were infringing using CFQDs in display all sorted for the use of Nanosys IP we never knew we needed.

Agree with Nanonano something changed in disclosure and a face saving ( is it) very unbalanced IP swap has been conjured up to close the case down.

Hopefully a better explanation of where this case went wrong will emerge but it is very unclear that the company is in any way better off from this outcome.

That’s just what someone who rambles incoherently about the value of having Nanosys IP in sensors as being of great value whilst knowing absolutely nothing about their IP would say I suppose. Bravo for being so predictable Terry.

Who ever said including the company there were any bars to sensor markets or they required Nanosys IP to make that happen….no one.

So the question is do we need said IP from Nanosys because if we don’t there is no effective value being applied to our display IP.

If we do need their IP a rather big question emerges and also no where does it state that Nanosys will not enter sensor markets with their IP just that Nanoco will not be sued if they use them.

This whole deal as set out to shareholders including meeting our own costs which was effectively defending Shoei action does not point in any shape or form that there is going to be any further side to the deal we have not had the upper hand here. It makes no sense Nanoco stop litigation on the basis of what they have announced on the potential of something more later on or added to the terms they have disclosed.

I believe any asset sale or payment by related party would very much fall under compensation.

I see any sale even to Shoei as further away post this agreement ..

But hey ho i also might be looking at this wrong and this is another part of the genius strategic plans of Nanoco that has got us to where we are today!

I remember a number of folks after Samsung settlement saying oh no this is not it they have only settled because they will get large follow on orders from Samsung …you just wait and see there is more to it. We did there wasn’t.

Sammy by specifying there is no consideration in the arrangement if they then pop up with anything like an asset sale , royalty income or any other financial benefit to the stated material terms do you not think that would be grossly misleading?? Someone selling on the basis the company’s cash position will be less attractive after funding the action and receiving no other benefit might feel rather miffed at that guidance.

Every arrangement involving protected use of certain patents in certain markets im sure is not just a handshake and done there will be close scrutiny of what this arrangement covers …also clarity on whether markets are no go for either party as terry seems to read into this…i do not , i’m sure Nanoco could supply their CFQDs for display if they ever got a customer and Nanosys their non infringing dots for sensors if they wish to enter that market.

Nope you are not Terry you are as ever making it up as you go along…evidence is in every post.

A term sheet is a non-binding document outlining the material financial and legal terms of a deal…

“The parties have agreed in good faith to negotiate an agreement reflecting the term sheet as well as other deal terms.”

Anything material financial and legal…and the company has specified there is no compensation..that would be any financial benefit royalty , patent sale or otherwise.

I think they are just sorting the small print , the materiality has been correctly disclosed.

“The parties have agreed in good faith to negotiate an agreement reflecting the term sheet as well as other deal terms. All other terms of the term sheet are confidential.”

So by saying other terms are confidential they are therefore non financial as would have to be disclosed to shareholders if they were.

Why I school you I don’t know but you have had many lessons now and you seem to be a very slow learner.

You are quite ridiculous ..you state Shoei are walking away from sensor markets at great cost….they do not say that at all , they say they will allow Nanoco to use their sensor IP in exchange for using Nanoco display IP.

I am just sticking to what we have been told so far ..which is the material part of the agreement…shame you don’t do the same.

You just can’t help trying to puff whatever poor outcomes this company delivers as you always do …and will no doubt be wrong again.

Where does it say Shoei will not compete in sensors? It says..

Nanoco covenants not to sue Shoei, its customers, and suppliers for use of Nanoco's Quantum Dot ("QD") patents for the display field, and Shoei covenants not to sue Nanoco, its customers, and suppliers for use of Shoei's QD patents for the sensing field.“

Shoei have patents in sensors sure but they can use their own IP in those markets if they so wish.

Why do we need their IP in sensors when we have spent years focusing on that market and our sensors technology is based on our validated platform patents . Shoei have concentrated on display ..do we need their IP in sensors??

Or is this all a cover for Nanoco realising that Nanosys have not been infringing in display and needed an off ramp ?