Member Info for Nanogeddon

It would be great to only deal Samsung's competitors. Screw them!

Thanks Hawi! Good to hear some news on Nano's potential for the future.

Gig likes the attention. I'm struggling to decide whether that's his entire motivation, or if he wants the SP to drop.

Good spot. What a lej!

Was NigWitty banned from the board?

...and you felt the need to join, only after he left GigWitty... even though you are so much alike that you can remember every opinion he has and everything that he contributed to this board.

There may be a compelling case, but that does not imply high probability. You seem to struggle with the concept of probability.

Anyway, I didn't take the posts to mean high probability, and anyone who can't understand the concept maybe shouldn't be buying shares.

I agree Barbon. Just pondering your point "But I can see the reverse logic of the removal of the danger of an injunction seriously affecting European revenue for themselves and any other end use customers of their CFQD displays, e.g. Sony and Philips, and of a significant wilfulness increase. Both sides gain by settlement."...

I would expect it to be likely that Samsung's customers, Sony and Phillips, to have expressed their concerns to Samsung and potentially even applied some pressure to settle. From their point of view as this drew closer to the potential German injunction, the risks were either a block on their own sales, or the cost of Samsung supplying displays to them could increase dramatically if we imposed a large royalty rate.

Remember that Samsung want to continue supplying to Sony and Phillips and other manufacturers too.

Rubbish GigWitty. Rubbish. You do love to generalise, and put everyone but yourself/selves in the stupid box.

Some investors may have done as you have said but they didn't post it on this board. I read all of the posts and everyone here who even mentioned the larger awards said it a possibility, and they may well have thought *small* possibility. There were many possible outcomes, and there still are. Furthermore I haven't read of anyone claiming there would be a 3x multiplier with any level of certainty.

Dig out their posts please, or be quiet.

MattyBoy, please can you justify your thoughts: "... and a Samsung supply agreement to get Runcorn into production.Only Hansol protected by the agreement leaving us to pursue other infringers for damages/royalty."

Are you suggesting we could supply some of Samsung's future dots? Why would Samsung buy from us if they have Hansol?

I can't see how a wilfulness multiplier could be factored in at all Troublesome... the settlement is based on "no fault".

However, I have no expertise in this area.

He is such a tease :D

GigWitty, there is no point in guaranteeing a company's future if it only pays the directors. If this happens repeatedly then the share price is pennies, and the directors can't raise capital for their pay packets.

GigWitty, I would say to myself "No mug is going to invest in Nanoco again if I do this, because Nanoco never get paid within 4 years and when they do it's discounted to such an extent that there's nothing left for the shareholders." That's what I'd say to myself. The answer is NO!

Bonzo, can you clarify please? Thanks.

GigWitty, I agree with you entirely (on this point).

LeoMan, why would the funder apply pressure if they don't know what the settlement offer is?

Buzz, I have just called Interactive Investor. They say the do not manage funds, and confirm that the 9% you see relates only to nominee accounts.

Goodnight.

But I don't expect you to back down one inch because you are so ****ING ARROGANT!