Member Info for Nanonano

That would be some discount. If you're using Edison figures for worldwide sales, just historic figures would be circa $600-750m, future sales figures would at least double that wouldn't it?

To quote them-

"For context, we have previously calculated that lost revenue in the US attributable to the patent infringement so far could be US$200–250m or more. This figure would increase if non-US sales and future shipments are included."

At no stage have Edison issued any guidance on the amount of any reduction in payment. They said.

"However, a settlement is likely to be based around lost earnings rather than revenues, with a further discount on the potential jury outcome reflecting uncertainties about risk and the time value of money, noting the full trial and appeal process could take years.
Lawyers’ success-based fees will also be deducted from the settlement"

The lowest estimate per set I had seen was the Turner Pope, which I think was around £/$8 (can't recall if it was pounds or dollars).

If we say 32million past sales, and even with a conservative estimate of say 50million sales going forward, that's £/$656million. If we take a bit off for earnings rather than revenue, say 20% around £/S525million, then subtract funders and legal fees.

Now that's not me making stuff up, that's based on published figures and a very conservative figure for future sales, the latter could be far more if the figures extended to 2035, I've just allowed five years. No multiplier, no wilfulness, just straight payment per unit for tech used.

How would accepting a low award influence present and future contracts with other companies? They would not be blind to what Samsung had agreed with Nanoco.

If Nanoco and investors end up with an award of just a few million or nothing at all when all the bills are settled, then the c-suite will have some serious questions to answer why they accepted such a low amount and didn't proceed when the company was on eve of a potentially historic trial.

However I don't believe that will be the case, but will have to be a bit more patient. Past the half way mark now.

https://sldinfo.com/2023/01/ensuring-european-sovereignty-in-producing-high-performance-ir-sensors/

You've picked up the wrong end of the stick.

The forthcoming Apple headset is likely to be called Reality Pro, and that has all the bells and whistles with a corresponding high price tag ($3k). It's VR/XR rather than AR. The next product, predicted to be 2024, or possibly early 2025 will be a cut down version, about half the price or less and is likely to use an iphone as a 'brain' rather than incorporate a built in processor. I would expect the sensor suite to be the same, as it would severely compromise the user interface otherwise. In the interim there could be some adaption of the sensors, as Apple like any company will seek to reduce cost wherever possible.

AR products are more akin to a lightweight pair of spectacles, a very challenging prospect especially if everything is to be contained within the frames. Heat management, plus battery capacity in addition to display capability remain major hurdles.

They're using old sales figures only up to 2021. Does not take into account 2022 plus the QD OLED introduced last year, plus of course future sales within patent lifetime.

Jarthur219, not quite sure about the context of your posts?

If Hansol are predicting 13.7% yoy growth for QD materials, I'd say that was good line in the sand for calculating future sales growth. That could be conservative too.

Well according to the useful link Ecclescake posted, Hansol forecast generating 132bn KRW in QD sales this year, which is over £86m. For one year!

All generated off Nancoco's tech. Is it really conceivable that a deal is just going to be a few tens of millions for all previous and future sales?

"The Edison note clearly states that their previous basis for calculating on lost royalties no longer applies. The new basis is lost revenue."

Bearing in mind that the revenue was based on Dow royalties, I would have thought the difference to be marginal.

Very odd behaviour for someone uninvested in a company to be hanging around and frequently posting.

Have you not got anything better to do, FH?

I wouldn't regard Nanoco as having been a very satisfactory investment if the share price only reflects say an average in the mid fifty pence territory, especially for long term holders who've had to weather the ups and downs over the past few years when the company came very close to going under.

Certainly some holders who have been fortunate enough to get in when the company was really in the doo-daa after the Apple contract cancellation, would be well in profit, but that is more by pure chance than good judgement, and the investment was exceedingly risky then.

Far too many posts on here making statements on settlement amounts like it's a fact, when we don't know anything at all.

As far as I'm concerned the final figure should be in the hundreds of millions not tens as some are speculating.

The latest Edison statement reiterated the $250m figure for historic US sales alone. Even if you halved that and then tripled it for worldwide sales, plus future projected sales, all these low ball figures just doesn't resonate with me.

"until Nanoco gets firm orders for something or other could leave the SP very vulnerable."

So what's new?

Well I don't think waiving the cost of Runcorn was any sense of altruism.
It wasn't even small change to Apple, but was in their interests to keep on the right of a small company with pivotal tech.

The first Apple set is reported to be called Reality Pro, but there is a second set due not long after called Reality One, which will be lower in price, some saying possibly half the cost. I think the sensor suite is likely to remain similar, but could sell in higher volume.

Apparently the thin framed Apple glasses have been kicked into the long grass- the tech isn't ready yet.

The technology reportedly used in the Apple Headset is very likely to require a pair (at least) of SWIR sensors for eye tracking and iris recognition. There are only two technologies that enable this . Ingaas and QD enhanced CMOS, Ingaas sensors start from around £1000 per sensor, and that's the cheap ones, plus they're also limited in resolution. So completely out for a headset which is in the region of $3000 according to the technical press.

Also the present infra red materials are lead sulphide based, and perhaps Apple and co are wary of putting that into something which will sell in hundreds of millions. They probably want a lead free alternative for that.

In addition Yole, have given timelines for QD sensor incorporation in smartphones, and 2025 is the very earliest.

STMicro order perhaps not far away?

https://wccftech.com/apple-ar-headset-lenses-being-shipped-next-month/

https://www.biometricupdate.com/202301/researchers-develop-fingerprint-biometrics-and-liveness-for-under-qled-smartphone-displays

The CEO has stated more than once that by transformational value, it would be multiples of the company valuation. So that IMO is a figure in hundreds not tens of millions.