Member Info for Nanogeddon

Nanono, are there any patents involved in the Samsung litigation that will last more than 3 more years?

surely marketing affects net profit margin rather than gross?

Oh that's much better Nigs. And good prosody too. :D

It's not easy money if you assign a low probability :D

Agreed Sammy - you may well be right and I too am very optimistic. I intentionally chose a low 2% to illustrate that the weighted average doesn't change very much and therefore the SP is not inconsistent with these scenarios.

I very much appreciate all opinions on this board and the wealth of knowledge. Sammy - I appreciate your scenarios and NigWitty I appreciate the encouragement to be level headed given the research you have done.

I would like to point out (obvious to most I'm sure) that the SP is dependent on the expectation of the best estimate of all outcomes.

Sammy outlined 3 damage scenarios conditional on a win: $200m, $1.85bn and $3.75bn. If the higher scenarios were assigned low probabilities of 2% each then the best estimate win is $300, compared with $200m when disregarding the higher scenarios. For this reason the current SP is not inconsistent with the inclusion of these improbable scenarios.

There is, after all the possibility of an award higher than all historic awards, no matter how unlikely that may be.

Respectfully can we move back to informed debate. There has been a lot of text here to wade through. :)

NigWitty, is an inflation adjustment on the $10, using some apt index a reasonable expectation?
Aside note I'm sure I read $14-$18 somewhere.

"According to global market tracker Omdia, Samsung Electronics’ QLED TV sales in cumulative terms reached 28 million units as of end of March."
https://m.mk.co.kr/news/english/view/2022/06/486800/

I recall that a recent article someone posted here said there had been 28m TVs sold worldwide.

If I were to guess the share price in the event of settlement, I think a reasonable approach would be ('worldwide settlement'/322m + 'ongoing annual royalty' x 8 /322m). 322m being the number of shares, and 8 being a modest price to earnings uplift.
Ongoing annual royalty from samsung should be at least $14 per TV multiplied by 5m TVs sold per year annually.

Sammy, I think $400 per TV for the ongoing royalty is way too high. The judge cannot impose a price for the future royalty element - surely this element will be down to negotiation between Nano and Samsung.

Thank you all. Intrusive, I like your thinking!

Having said that, I’m not selling a single share until long after the Texas court case, so maybe I should just be patient and stop speculating on the award.

I get the environmental aspect, but the higher price tag of a QD TV comes down to the extra value that customer places on it. I would have thought much of that value is attributable to the quality of quantum dots generally, and less so to the cad free USP. I suspect that Samsung will use this angle to keep the damages award down.
Sorry to play devils advocate - I am really hoping you will argue my point away and convince me.

Thanks Intrustive Thought. Very helpful.

Thanks guys for your answers. I am really looking for justification as to why the award might be based on the profits model (ie Samsungs excess profits) rather than the minimum royalties model.
It seems to me that the award will be somewhere in between and where it lies is determined by the value that the cad free QD added.
If cadmium could produce something of significantly better quality than the previous technology and almost as good as CFQD then I would expect the award to be closer to the royalties model. If CFQD makes all the difference in quality then the award could be higher.
I’m in this big and long and hoping for maximum award possible.

If Samsung had made their TVs using Cadmium Quantum Dots rather than Cad-Free QDs, would the quality have been as good?

It seems to me that Samsungs marketing does not emphasise the cad free, but rather the QD technology.

Isn’t this quite key in assessing the share of the excess profits that Nanoco should be entitled to in the profits model for awarding damages?

Another thought I have had, that may hopefully have some weight is that this is new (vastly improved) technology. People generally only buy new TVs when they are better than the old one, and so it is not just the premium for a TV that has increased for Samsung, but the overall number of sales, not to mention their increased market share. All of which is mainly attributable to Nano's QDs.

Sammy I am very much in favour of your damages model and do hope it influences the award, and subsequent settlement. I would point out however, that our only real influence to get this settled is an injunction in the EU or UK. If the damages awarded in the EU use a different model and are significantly lower, then Samsung's best strategy may be to sacrifice the EU sales? But I hope you are right - it could certainly give justification for an uplift on the lower awards models.

BeContrarian, I do recall in the first estimate that Edelman gave he said the uplift on a sale was $900-$1200 and the increased cost of production per TV would be around $100. He also mentioned the fixed costs on martketing. See below ~6min in.

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/media/edison-executive-interview-july-2020/

Sammy, surely we are entitled to a future royalty even if the judge does not order it?