Member Info for Nanogeddon

You got me troublesome... I also spelt no incorrectly.

A commercial contract on it's own will not enable us to defend our IP.

Hands up intrusive. I no nothing about about Nanotech. But I do know that if you don't have much cash in the bank then you can't defend your IP unless a funder thinks the infringement is big enough for them to make big money. That would be a long way down the line for the next one post the Samsung litigation. I also know that if you defend your IP for a few million quid every time, then the company has no value. None.

We need either a BIG pay out here or we need a commercial contract.

No respect indeed GigWitty.

GigWitty, BT often said transformational in terms of shareholder value, and that was regarding the litigation outcome.

Shareholder value isn't transformed simply transforming the company, or by having your IP defended. Shareholder value is transformed when the money hits the bottom line, or when it is anticipated to do so.

Yes BT commented that due to fog his car would warn him not to rely on the sensors because they couldn't see. But he said if Nanoco tech was in those sensors then it would have been able to see through the fog.

Thanks for the link. I shall in future actively encourage everyone I know not to invest in innovation and technology, ever. It is most certainly a mugs game...
Unless you are investing in Tesla or other green technology... there, you sit on the other side, and reap the benefits of corrupt governments investing billions of tax payers money in their infrastructure.

Sorry I still think 50% discount is extreme and indefensible under any assumptions, unless Samsung were to acknowledge massive growth. ie A big boost for us offsetting the discount.

WishingAndHoping, I don't think you need to discount by 75%. Far from it. It depends what you are discounting by. Even if you were using inflation to discount which isn't reasonable under most models for discounting, and even with the most conservative assumption of 10% inflation to discount over every coming year for time horizon of the patents to 2028 or 2035... and even with a conservative assumption of Samsung's sales doubling every year over those projection periods, the discounts would be as follows:

Scenario A - patents run to 2028 with doubling sales for Samsung at 10% discount: apply 65%, ie reduce by 35%
Scenario B - patents run to 2035 with doubling sales for Samsung at 10% discount: apply 37%, ie reduce by 63% (but with more sales under this scenario due to the patents running for an extra 7 years).

And you could only apply such large discounts if Samsung were to acknowledged such large growth levels as the doubling every year, which would would mean significantly more royalties.

No expert would make such high assumptions of discount. Even our (incredible) central banks would not assume inflation would remain high this long. Even a prudent level of 5% inflation gives discount between 80% and 60% (ie reduce by 20% to 40%) over these periods, under the above assumptions.

Itsamaybe... I have to be honest with you ... it's the English. Use words. No one could even assess your maths because you abbreviate everything. Slow down. I would like to hear what you actually have to say.

Winners like Maradona

Gonna get me some Samsung shares...

There is a real winner. Samsung. No matter what they pay for the settlement, they are the real winner.

It should be more Scampdawg. Shame to be sold out.

We were at 9p when there was no sign of a legal funder, no sign of a litigation, our display business had been stolen and we were more loss making than we are now. At that time 9p represented the hopes of a still distant commercial contract.

Commercialisation is probably imminent with a long term plan from the European partner who has invested a lot in not only the first generation of the product but the 2nd generation also.
We have more clients showing more interest.
Our cost base is lower now.
We have cash runway to 2025 and with some money from this settlement we have financial security for longer.
Therefore in my mind value of our potential commercialisation represents considerably more than 9p of the current share price... probably closer to 20p.

Not quite correct botbot. Corporation tax on £360m would be (£360m - £40.5m) *10%... assuming the 10% rate is correct.

Exactly. Why are Lombard selling?

Maestro, the sky is the limit if we can commercialise the dots aside from display (which will turn into a lump sum of cash on settlement with amount X)…. but it takes a long long time to get products out there and it will be a long time before it makes the kind of money that display should have made.

Cost of a legal battle =Y

If X is less than Y then future companies can sell our sensing tech for free because they will see that we can’t afford to go after them.

If X is greater than Y then they might not dare to use our tech for fear of being sued… and if they do then we pay £50m for the court case and the Board settle the case for Y…

Valuation zero unless X is significantly more than Y, or ST Micro are very gentlemanly indeeeed.

But what would I know? I’m not a lawyer. But the lawyers on this page have very different views too!

Take a small punt or steer clear. No-one that has been around for years can work it out so why would you think you could?

The Board owe us an RNS with some clarity. This is pure negligence!

Did they get someone’s kid to write it? there’s no clarity at all.

The only clarity we have is that Lombard doesn’t think this is gonna do much better than 40p!