Member Info for Kooba

Know i didn’t.

But i assumed a settlement for global rights past and future for the life of the patents would also be a far larger figure than historic US alone. I also did not figure the large part of the settlement would be in the form of selling valuable patents.

Ddubya they got the $200-$250m from Turner Pope research from time of fundraise, low end , lost licence revenue per product …so the gross and net from licence revenues should be pretty similar as there are no material and manufacturing costs so predominately revenue is profit. Peel Hunt earlier note had said $300m on the same basis of lost licence revenue on a per product basis. I imagine delivering manufactured quality product for a large display for $6-$10 per panel and making a profit would not be possible. Just guessing though.

The successful and significantly over-subscribed fundraise of GBP5.4 million (net) in June 2022 creates a solid foundation for the business by extending our cash runway out to CY25. This is expected to be beyond the resolution of any PTAB appeals and also potentially beyond the point when we expect the organic business to become self-financing.

Chairmans statement OCT 2022 a couple of months before the fold.

Can even cut and paste and having a go at me…stupid indeed.

Qd your quote attributed to me.

@Kooba

"As to being THE …how many people have accused you now"

My actual post

“As to being TH …how many folk have you accused now…seems the guy is living rent free in your head “

You seem to be struggling .

Qd..do stop projecting.

Oh is that defamation..lmao.

Don’t be a silly and don’t make up my opinions for me …I used $500m as a run up the flagpole figure …some suggested higher earlier based on the low models extrapolating for global sales with no patents sold.

As to being TH …how many folk have you accused now…seems the guy is living rent free in your head

So much BS…and it seems many are now accusing the company of misleading the market with their financial projections saying they were not realistic and the company was not in a viable financial position to cash flow break even as we were told. Strange.

Nanonano..you make the company sound like they are over optimistic on their market expectations…perish the thought !

Not spinning anything and they had no going concern issues…if you believe the management.

There would have been numerous ways to fund the business with a successful court ruling and ways of protecting the settlement from appeal. The company had serious leverage to use and were on the brink of a court case they were extremely confident of having overcome all hurdles thrown up by Samsung and were going to court on their high case claim and their patents fully upheld under challenge ….again if you believed the company’s stated position.

As folks keep pointing out we are where we are but no point in dismissing the extremely strong case we had and the optionality the company held…saying we had going concern issues is not true.

The cash burn post fundraise was £100k a month , they stated they had funding to cashflow breakeven.

If the company had won $500m in court do you think they could not have raised money at a premium to the share price 5th Jan? The litigation funder was there for appeals but we would have had a number of financing options. The business itself was fully financed as they stated post raise.

Ngr

‘Troublesome the terminology going concern is an audit observation based on accounts. Before the settlement there were concerns they were at risk whereas unlike you suggested, they are not now and won’t be for many years assuming good stewardship’

Where were these worries ? The company stated they had sufficient cash to take the company through to positive cashflow after the 37p fundraise. I can see no audit qualification around the company's financial position.

Does anyone remember the action we were taking in Germany and China with a successful court case and the threat of having their products barred from these markets we had leverage..i thought that was the point. We could also have gone to the ITC to have an import ban on infringing Samsung products into the USA. We had a good hand. As to finance we could have raised funding on a successful court case and we could have insured against the appeal.

As BT said many times agreement can be reached at any time during proceedings often after the court case…very few appeal cases run to court enforced settlement.

Talked tough , played weakly.

‘If you were paying attention” and there we go again. Defame others to make his opinion look better. ‘

defame

/dɪˈfeɪm/

verb

damage the good reputation of (someone); slander or libel.

‘Feel free to continue wasting your time on this.’

Thanks ..didn’t realise i needed any permission though.

I imagine apologists are was wasting their time too.

The proof of the benefits for folding will indeed be seen shortly…maybe….however I remember many suggesting that the settlement was taken because it was holding up commercialisation…now we are maybe on the cusp of an initial sub $1M contract ( source BT) I’m not sure how that holds water , think i would have preferred to go to court.

If you paid attention i did not raise the settlement but i had a view on the post…that i am allowed to express i thought.

You seem to be suggesting that the 118 patents sold had no real value but the company attributed $90m to their sale. Was there a way of avoiding tax as they were in a patent box ?

Thought you had folk like me on ignore because you do not agree with…advise you preferred to someone yesterday, maybe practise what you preach if you don’t like my posts. Chin chin.

Obviously the models presented did not involve any sale of patents ..where we sold about 23% of our previously scaled back portfolio including one that was upheld at challenge. So i guess if you put any value on the patents sold as the company did ($90m) then the real deal on settlement of all past and future licence of patents becomes far lower percentage.

Nanonano , we only got a few $m from first instalment net on fees , tax and success arrangements and we get about $71.5m ( after tax) from second instalment with the capital of the loan notes still outstanding. What the company gets net net is really nearer $70m. As i said that is a small percentage net of the lower case calculation of $660m you made.

NGR…I am not suggesting for a moment that you are an involved party..read the context. I am saying you would have to be to know the detail of the LOAM decision making process behind their re-entering the market. You clearly do not, hence you are in no way connected.

About the size of it..apart from the company saying that they would only settle o a figure that recognised the value of the lifetime of the patents on a global basis…then didn’t.

The net to the company is a small percentage of the figures you present ..and those figures are based on the low end not what the company was going to court with that was upheld in pre trial. I’m sure Samsungs was far lower of course but Nanoco was going with the highest model not lowest.