Member Info for Nanogeddon

We have never been told (although BTs ambiguity was not so damaging previously)…. so we are maybe left to assume that it means the lower damages model…. which one can only now assume (from the ambiguous RNS) is the one we are to expect.

I thing we can assume 50%…. But then again Edison (who we spend my money on) seem to imply that we might end up with virtually nothing left over.

Really hard to know innit?

The funder gets ~20% of a high award or ~50% of a low award. They keep the majority of any award.
Perhaps Samsung are topping up the funder? Wouldn’t sunrise me now.

Angst? Damn right. I didn’t buy on the rise. Bought years ago and months ago and held throughout all the bull**** that was spouted by the board of this company. And then, like a fool I recommended the share to others. Never again. Never.

Don’t want to hear any more from the man. He must show me the money first. Very disillusioned.

Barbon, could you just like my posts please before you sign off for the day...

This Board's more exciting than ever! Netflix couldn't drag me away!

Feeks... leave it... He's as GigaWriggly has his twin brother and you will not pin him down to acknowledging anything that you confront him with. LOL

I can say say this: If the net cash to Nanoco is less than £50m, I will not keep my stake in the company because the concept of defending the IP for a pittance is an absolute nonsense. Not for the Board of Directors you understand, but for me!!

Yes Nano! Yes! Tell me more!

You don't know that GigWitty. I and many others have invested based on the overall potential of QD, with a view to remain a shareholder long term. I just expected a bigger cherry than you did. And the size of the cherry had many potential sizes, including 10s of millions, 100s of millions, or billions each with different levels of probability assigned.
My blind spot I have to say, is that whilst I was willing to take a gamble, having some diversification with other types of investment, the Board are not risk takers like I am and they would perhaps rather secure some cash for their day job.

Yes. Samsung can hardly argue that the tech was undesirable.

Interesting that you and Nigs were such long term holders but took it in turns to comment on this board ;o)

Let's do a whatapp group. We can vote to expel someone each day until the settlement... keep us all occupied.

I like Feeks and Sammy. They make me feel good.

Maybe they think it's worth more the 37.6p :D

No RNS today on Lombard selling.

Ok... Well I hope we can get a share. Cheers GigaWitt.

Yes - one thing we can trust that Nanoco have said is that Samsung were infringing their patents.... so it is probably true that others are infringing. Prolly not worth taking them to court though, if it costs so much.

GigaWitt, why then would Nanoco agree to settle? For the benefit of everyone else? They have only secured patents that they can no longer commercialise in any significant way.

I agree with all you have said Lobo. Still hoping however. We might find ourselves eating our words in a few days... If so I will apologise. LOL