Member Info for Nanogeddon

I would include Nanonano and Amerloque as reliable long term holders. And I have to say that Gig and NGR, whilst rude, do appear to have been right to some degree in moderating expectations.

By that I mean, if Nanoco were going to get peanuts as a result of the funder pulling the plug.

If the funder were pulling the plug on this and bullying Nanoco to settle, would any future company use them?

Lost Earnings vs Lost Revenue - not much difference?
Can anyone remember the gross margin on dots that Nanoco's factory can produce?

My understanding is that due to the vast quantity of dots needed for Samsung, the majority of the dots in the arrangement with Samsung were going to be manufactured by Dow and the rest manufactured by Nanoco. For the dots that Dow were going to produce Nanoco would have gained a royalty and therefore the revenue would equal earnings for this element. For the dots that Nanoco were going to produce the gross margin is high and therefore earnings would be a bit lower (maybe 20% lower) than revenue for this element.

Therefore on the whole the lost earnings should not be much lower than the lost revenue - maybe only 5% lower?

Am I correct?

This guy has been around a while, even if he thinks it’s AIM.

Way too much carp on this board at the moment from people who have never shown an interest in commenting previously. And I have been around for several years.

Take i most of it with a pinch of salt and if it looks even slightly credible check the poster’s history.

What on earth? Where are you getting this from?

We should take the settlement and then sue them for the red dots…. LOL

Excuse me if I’m a few hours behind on reading this chat.

I cannot see how a settlement for future royalties or a contract for future royalties can be agreed separately to the settlement that is being agreed for the past.

Samsung will not settle the the past unless they are protected from future litigation, and if they are protected from future litigation then we have no power to negotiate a settlement for future.

Irresponsible RNS. Are they not meant to be used to inform the market?

IMO we are a long way below fair value. I will not be selling any shares before the settlement.
Good start to the year... GLA.

paste please? :)

Whadit say?! Whadit say?! :)

3 million shares have been bought LOL

Irrelevant.

does anyone know whether interest or inflation is taken into account with the award?

As I recall, Nanoco can impose the injunction if they win the Germany trial based on infringement (this part of the case should finish between Nov 2023 and Feb 2024) provided they put up security deposit. The validity aspect of the German case will not be established until mid 2024.

Good summary Feeks.

If this does go as far as an injunction in Germany then I believe the rewards are even greater than those you have tabled. We will be in control of the 'negotiations' at that stage. Nanoco can set a royalty rate as high as it wants for worldwide sales up to the level at which it wouldn't be worth Samsung selling TVs in Germany. But even at that level, would Samsung be willing to limit it's own customers and their ability to sell in Germany?

Unless I'm missing something here? Surely Samsung will want to settle before an injunction is imposed. It's too risky for them not to?

Thanks Nan.

Can you explain what that means please Armeloque?