Member Info for LordWM

And let's arrange that meet-up in Runcorn for the 90% of genuine holders on this board, if the price goes where we hope it will.
Otherwise we can all cry for a bit and try to move on!

I've tried to avoid engaging in the nonsense being spewed by the de-rampers (who claim not to hold but spend all day every day attacking N's potential). If they haven't bought in yet then unlucky them.

I'm assuming that tomorrow (could be 7am, could be after 4.30), or by Monday latest, we're looking at one of three outcomes:
- all of our speculation will be answered as they announce details of a settlement, which will be transformational - £3-400m or more net to Nanoco
- they'll indicate that they're close but not together, and will apply to the court for more time (I hope not)
- we'll have an RNS stating that agreement hasn't been reached and we'll wait for a re-scheduled court date.

I'd be happiest with either the first or third outcome. I suspect outcome two is unlikely because Nanoco should use the deadline as leverage.

If a global 'patent peace' settlement is reached, I'll be very interested to see the detail, and how Nanoco can grant Samsung/Hansol unlimited use of their IP without limitation. Personally I can't see how Nanoco can safely agree to this without butchering their market, so we could see some ongoing royalty agreement (from Samsung or Hansol) or a very significant settlement number.

Fingers crossed for a huge lift in SP tomorrow, likely a multiple of where we are now.

GLA.

The two accounts Flyinghigher and Gigawitt are the two most prolific derampers, possibly the same person, who knows.

Hi Compass, and FlyingHigher is one of the those desperately trying to reduce the price so someone can buy. The poster claims not to hold, but spends all day making more than 20 posts a day on average, making spurious posts that others have easily rebutted.

Gigawit “the point is that royalties won’t apply because there’s going to be a lump sum settlement.”

Nanoco “Historical precedent shows that any final agreement is likely to be a one off payment,”

So not a definite, and I still can’t see how a settlement would work without royalties from someone, without compromising Nanoco’s viability.

Here's some more data - FH has posted 23 times so far today.
Time well invested for someone who isn't invested and thinks this is a dog stock.
hhmmmmm

We're running out of things to say and speculate about, but as the 30 days ticks down I've increasingly thought about how a 'patent peace' agreement and settlement would work.
Being a platform technology company with many applications across display and sensors, I just can't square off how Nanoco could let Samsung (and Hansol as their supplier) have patent peace without Samsung threatening Nanoco's business model. Could Samsung sell displays to anyone, and Hansol supply CFQDs to potential display and sensor manufacturers, competing directly with Nanoco but with more scale.

Could the agreement limit Samsung's use of CFQDs and their R&D? I suspect S would never accept this.

It would be horrific is Nanoco accepted a lowball offer with no royalties to protect against future sales and Samsung/Hansol eating their market. So the number would have to be significant (Samsung would resist this), or there would have to be a royalty agreement (which Nanoco suggested is less likely), or Samsung may make an offer to buy Nanoco.

It's a very complex negotiation where Nanoco will be understanding the implications of what they'll be giving away in return for patent peace.
Therefore, if Samsung don't accept royalties and the number isn't significant enough for Nanoco, is there a strong possibility that as 30 days approaches we'll be told that they can't reach agreement and will ask for the court to decide?

Looking at your historical posts (Flyinghigher), I’d guess you bought after the publicity of last years fund raise post PTAB at around 40p, added over the next few months and are broadly flat. You’ve been de-ramping to try to average down to share the spoils.
The very fact that you’ve invested so much time (around 14 posts throughout yesterday and 5 so far today) while claiming not to hold pretty much confirms you’re as excited about this as most others, and want to lover your average.
Is there another reason you’d spend so much time posting, as a non-holder, other than to buy?

Still here Flyinghigher? Not managed to buy in yet or just looking to average down? Or still claiming that you don’t hold, but spending all day every day posting on here? Hhhhmmmmm

FlyingHigher - "I don't hold any shares here anymore."
14 posts today so far, and not holding any.....
I call b******t.

"All we know is that it will likely be at the lower end of expectations"
Even if it is at the lower end, thats awesome, likely to be $200-500m net to Nanoco, which is the lower end of expectations.

I just looked at this board to see what's happening, there are so many people who claim Nanoco shares are worthless/overvalued at the current price, but are spending all day posting on this board.....
Click on their profiles and cound the number of posts, a lot of time spent for people who think this is a dead stock.
If they really though this they'd be elsewhere researching other stocks/working/enjoying life.
It's pretty obvious that these people are all invested, and are trying to lower the price to buy more.

I didn’t know that either Nano, thanks. Found a link, a little old but shows the connection https://www.imveurope.com/news/sts-quantum-dot-sensor-set-volume-swir-imaging

Sorry Gigawit, an obvious joke but couldn’t resist.

I think Nigwit has been on the Sherry, or paying too much attention to his cousins Half and F**k.

I think Hawi is correct Katstrangler, the US action is another 5 years assuming S don’t settle, which is why N took action in Germany and China where am I junction could be in place against S and any OEMs they sell infringing products to by mid 2024. There would def be a settlement by that point.

Hi Troublesome - we were #1 on the list before having been delayed, I’d hope we would be again if talks broke down, but even if another 3 months I’d rather that than a bad deal.
There’s risk in court but S would be more afraid IMO. S would appeal, we’d then see them in Germany next year.
If the case is strong I’d be happy to wait for a fair settlement, I’d personally take the risk of N not having a case.
To me a fair deal is either:
1 - $5-8 a unit for all past and future global unit sales for say 5 years (90m units minimum), plus a contribution for costs, and agreement that Samsung can buy CFQDs from Hansol, and Hansol can sell CFQDs to Samsung only. If Hansol sell to others we can take action against them if they don’t sign a licence and pay royalties.
2 - Samsung pay damages for past global sales only (again $5-8 for approx 40m units) and Hansol sign a licence where they pay N royalties for all future CFQD sales to S and anyone else.

We need to make sure there’s a market for Nanoco after this.

This makes you a definite de-ramper ceejay.
There's no way Nanoco would accept a deal that:
- Doens't give fair value (at the lower end as stated in the RNS - $5-8 per unit) for unit sales
- Doesn't give fair value (albeit discounted in return for cash now) for future sales (at least 10m units annually)
- Would give no future royalties
- Would let Hansol (who have the largest CFQD manufacturing capacity in the world) sell CFQDs to anyone without paying royalties
I predict $250-500m net to Nanoco after paying legal costs, otherwise we'll be back to court

"a pre-trial settlement to be lower than an award."
It's important that we seperate an award from a settlement.
An award would be for US sales only (1/3 of global sales), a settlement will only be for global sales.
Nanoco will accept a lower unit price for a settlement because it removes risk of a trial and time/cost of appeals.
But a settlement will be for 300% of the unit volume a US trial award.
The nebulous update from Edison still doesn't make clear if it's referring to an award for US sales, or a global settlement.

zCars - great find.
BT said a settlement would only be:
- Fair value (albeit at lower end of guidance)
- Global (if not then we'll see Samsung in Germany in 18 mths)
- For lifetimes of patents
He said in zCars presentation clip, and again in Monday's RNS that it's likely to be a single payment for past and future infringements, with a discount on future sales in return for cash today.
40m sales globally, at a rate of over 10m going forward.
Lets say a pessemistic 5 years or 50m future unit sales, plus 40m past, 90m units total.
Even at $5 a unit (don't think it will be this low), that's £450m.
Nanoco could insist on a contribution to costs as part of a settlement, which wouldn't be unreasonable as S won't have a willfullness multipier, but even if 50% goes in costs that's $250m to N.
We won't have a crazy figure, but I think it's likely to be between $250m and $500m net to Nanoco.

I still think Hansol may be pressured into this by Samsung to agree a royalty deal too.

Accepting a low offer (sub £100m) while giving both Samsung and Hansol free reign to sell without royalties, butchering the display market, doesn't make sense, don't think it will happen.
I think it will be better than people are speculating (not crazy better, but with good compensation for lost royalties on future sales), or we'll be back to court.