Member Info for Kooba

IT

And if you get what you ask for…and i reckon you might in listening to a line in the presentation, then you will moan even more about undermining the company and destabilising shareholders.

But you might get what you ask for anyway.

Ddubya

The Agm is normally towards the end of December.

That will be an important point in seeing if they have met their latest and repeated target for commercial order(s).

Nanonano

There is an internal team and a retained special advisor as advised in March this maybe overlaps with the increased cost base…what are they doing is the question apart from producing heat maps??

Interims

“-Retained Special Adviser to support internal team evaluating opportunities to pursue further monetisation of the Company's IP”

IT

Well your back and..

“Sheikh Hamoodi and the Harem Globetrotters know F-all about the technology and business”

Where does one start to pick that apart ..just to say just a bit more casual racism and that it is quite clearly totally incorrect with even have a cursory look at the CVs of the nominees is just for starters.

Shame really that some have to resort to such BS.

Well a good argument is that is is rather too late to be bringing in any expertise in this field having just spent several years focused on a major and potentially very lucrative litigation case.

But the point they made was that whole case came down to 2 core patents the other 500 played no part in the submissions.

The company now has 370 odd patents after selling well over 100 to Samsung what’s left might not be that important geographically or commercially…but the portfolio is open to view hence why Lee made his observations around many being of no worth as they were in Finland etc.

Holding patents cost money so holding patents that have no worth to the company might seem the wrong thing to be doing if all the value is held amongst a few dozen. So patent managment and expertise is still a thing…Nanoco has given up over 200 patents in the past few years that Lee seemed to think could have held value in disposal , same with the 300-350 that are currently potential surplus to monetisation requirement.

The thing he mentioned at 37 mins into the presentation though i think worthy of reflection…Nanoco in their presentation pushed back any idea on any display licences or infringement cases to 2025 it seemed to me….now one of the core patents actually runs out around that time and the case would start losing any strength. He proposes acting swiftly and getting the ball rolling now and cant understand why the company has not already taking action or even prepared to do so. Not something that Nanoco has addressed but they did put up a little heat map of possible offenders …which was nice.

That seems to have been removed.

Folks need to think ..however emotional they may be , whether what they post is legal and legitimate when referring to real people who have reputations that can be damaged by posting false information.

Whether one can damage the reputation of an anonymous id on a bulletin board is naturally another matter.

PVX you sure you want to leave that slanderous piece up there?

Maybe you don’t understand the meaning of the word you state the proposed CEO is?

Here’s some help

felon1

[ fel-uhn ]SHOW IPA

See synonyms for felon on Thesaurus.com

noun

Law. a person who has been convicted of a felony, such as grand theft, kidnapping, or murder.

Unless you can prove that he is indeed a convicted felon i suggest you don’t post crap like that .

Well everyone seems exactly where they were before .

There are more questions to be answered on both sides.

My opinion is the board needs to be refreshed to regain any shareholder confidence , reflected in the share price rather than a few surprising supportive posts.

My position is still that i will vote at least against the Chair and likely the CEO i do not think them staying is in the best interests of the company. The company cannot move on without some untainted new blood..perhaps everyone can then focus on the organic possibilities and what the best course of action is to monetise the core portfolio.

As to the new nominees it think there are some genuinely interesting and highly appropriate people put forward with far more relevant experience in licensing and patent protection than currently on the board..where the current CEO admits they have no core competency.

I think there is another presentation on LSE on Monday? So will likely be able to attend and ask some questions.

great to see it back though with his dumb assed youtube ****e…what a star.

IT

“Sure you did.”

You really think I lie about my kids…I’m not like you fella i don’t lie.

Don’t need to.

Well it sounds like that went well..wasn’t able to listen in as took my kids out.

Seems to have cheered some up though !

I must be missing something..i put proof up and havent directly accused anyone of wrongdoing ..i have pointed out what their responsibilities are as directors of a listed company under securities law and that my opinion is that they did not achieve it. I try to explain my position using facts ..always have.

Attacking who without evidence exactly sunshine…you just attacked me because you felt like it and don’t have the smarts to argue so made it personal.

You want to report any of my posts feel free…but you yourself are not the chat room police. So keep it civil or zip it.

You have problem me contributing to this board? Why is that ? ..and i suggesting i need psycho therapy ? Where does that come from?

Thats a weird kinda thing to say..seen that kinda thing by other posters ..some that have been banned before. Maybe watch your step.

I am fully entitled to put my opinion up here and if you dont like it …thats tough.

Qdnano…so sorry to shock you!! You are however making some assumptions of my voting intentions around the GM.

I have not made my own mind up entirely but you seem to know how i will vote.

You knew the settlement would be where it was and you know my intentions…are you mystic meg or have you some special powers?

Stick to facts and things you do know and don’t accuse folk you know nothing about of falling from one error to another..this belittling tactic of BT fan boys is rather pompous and unbecoming..oh thats a personal opinion too !

And yes what i post on here are my personal opinions…i tend to post my own rather than other peoples.

P.s i did not purchase any additional shares on the news on 6th!

But i did use the Turner Pope and Edison research as guidance to what a fair and reasonable estimate of all past and future global use of the validation IP might look like, also basing much on direct communications from the company and presentations made.

Anyone who came up with $150m ($90m net) and most of that coming from patent sales rather than past and future licences …i have no idea how you could possibly have got that from any source…but the company !

The board are responsible to ensuring there is a level playing field of available information.

They didn’t.

They claim that guidance in the market should focus on the low end model..yet their own broker and marketing material ( edison) did not do this at all…far from it. The company were wall aware of the expectation in the market from these publications up to the 6th and never made any move to guide their paid for research lower.

They allowed a disorderly market to ensue on 6th Jan at the expense of retail investors.

They failed.

“…everything being discussed was about multiples of everything “

I think the management of Nanoco started the multiples thing…The management of Nanoco were also very well aware that much of the enthusiasm was based on extrapolating out from their own paid for research from Turner Pope and their own marketing material from Edison..they allowed it out there specifically targeted at retail investors. How can anyone be surprised that retail picked up on the $10 +per set ( described as low end) numbers being bandied about pretty consistently from all these sources…just for the historic infringement in the US market ? Was it wrong for folks to take that kind of number and globalise it and make some estimates on what a global future licence might be worth on top?

It did appear at the time it was Samsung who had come to Nanoco to avoid the risk of a trial and it was not unreasonable to think that meant Nanoco were in a strong position in arguing the terms.

I think those now with the benefit of hindsight need to be somewhat careful in telling all retail investors that they were “twats” in being optimistic on what to expect and its appears that just about every shareholder including LOAM were disappointed with the outcome ..they just were disappointed before everyone else for some reason !

So you are saying the share price reaction was “entirely predictable” on the 6th Jan and that the management was very wrong in believing it would have no reaction?

Your belief that these boards have such an impact on general retail position taking is rather misguided but as with the board of Nanoco it is just echoing a view that all retail are stupid and easily influenced. This seems one of the main arguments used by the company and supporters that retail didn’t appoint their own legal council to go through the court papers and base all their investment decisions on the low end case…oh and ignore everything the management ever said in the process. Its just nonsense and retail were hung out to dry against close institutional investors would were inside ( up to 12th Sept…at least) of all the modelling and all the advise the company had received.

NGR

Toostupidtorealiseit - the market went mental because twats like you read ‘we’ve reached a negotiated settlement’ as “we’re getting $750m………!”

Whilst you may think this kind of post is constructive and acceptable..it is not.

There were vast amounts of retail investors that bought into the company following the announcement on the 6th ..not just a few who interpreted the rns as being very positive. In fact just about everyone was a buyer apart from 1 (likely 2) very large and aggressive sellers.

You are basically saying that all retail investors were “twats” and that is the reason the market went “mental” apart from you and QL1 on the other board who knew exactly what the settlement was likely to be…all rather poorly judged comments.

The company said on the call that they didn’t think there would be any movement on the first rns so didn't see the need to put any guidance up…do you think their judgement was good over this or that they allowed an information void and a disorderly market to ensue?? Or do you think they did a smashing job of correctly informing the market as a whole of what the settlement might mean to shareholders?

Disappointing but certain individuals just lose the plot when they lose the argument sometimes. It’s odd that some seem to be reading everything single post on the other board but apparently never post there ..there is someone just like that on the other board too ..such a conincidence. They are having a hissy fit too right now !!