Member Info for Nanonano

The fact that two important patents that formed the axis of the case against Samsung run out in the next five years, one of the patents expires in just two years which is before we can expect to see major traction in the sensor market (assuming it ever arrives). This is something that should concern all Nanoco investors. I don’t think Tariq’s group demonstrated any credible strategy for dealing with that, but I don’t think it’s been sufficiently addressed by Nanoco either. How much value will there be in Nanoco’s IP when other companies can legally use molecular seeding without license?

Aware of other tech they’ve been working on, but that seems to be cloaked in secrecy, and could be years away from mainstream use as a marketable product.

I got cut-off part of the way through the presentation today, although managed to hear from all those proposed. Didn't think they had a great deal to add beyond what I'd read on their circulars. I thought it was interesting to hear how they'd have gone about the litigation process differently.

It’s a valid point that if Nigel Pickett was to meet with misfortune, then the company would be minus its CTO.

Two caveats to that, either way the company could find itself badly compromised, but in leaving he would be free to work elsewhere, and other staff might follow him. Also critical staff whether they leave by choice or get a handshake from St Peter can make or break a company, especially a small outfit like Nanoco.

"Nanonano

How did you know the Cowell aren't using Nanosys dots have you researched their back ground."

Cowell don't make CMOS image sensors. They make CMOS camera modules, the CMOS wafer is made by a third party. Not many companies in the world can make that tech, and fewer still competitive in the infrared spectrum.

Impossible to be 100% certain until we get confirmation from the company or third party source, but the following factors lead me to believe it’s the Apple Vision Pro.

1. The shifting timetable that closely aligns with delays Apple have reported.

2. The performance of the Apple Vision pro eye and hand tracking is some magnitudes better than anything else on the market, suggesting novel technology.

3. Iris recognition. It’s believed SWIR wavelengths are required for this to work well.

4. Long standing partnership between STMicro and Apple

5. Apple were working with Nanoco previously, and gifted the company the facilities. Apple not generally known for their generosity, indicating they needed them at a future date.

Saying that Cowell make the sensors is like saying Ford make cars, disregarding that within cars are parts from hundreds of companies.

It’s statements like that that make it impossible for me to take TH seriously, especially when they’re published in black and white.

I found it amusing TH boldly states that STMicro will not be supplying sensors for the Apple Vision Pro because Cowell are. Does he actually know what Cowell produce?

I won’t be expecting the company to be making any serious cash until 2027, at the earliest, assuming sensor revenue is their primary source of income. Can’t see lead sulphide appearing in handsets or other electronic products selling in tens or hundreds of millions.

This also assumes someone else doesn’t come through with a competing technology in the meantime, bearing in mind a core patent expires in 2025.

The only hope is that some reflected glory shines upon the company if it proves to be the case that the sensors are being used in an Apple product. Yet to be determined.

I think the company knew last year that supply of sensors was likely to be delayed and reduced in numbers, and very likely Samsung did too, hence they low balled the settlement.

In regards to facts, we do know that phone calls were made with shareholders and creditors on 5th January, and it's been alleged that LOAM were included in that group. Whether it was right and proper or not, whilst that allegation remains and information about the call remains vague or unassessed by an independent authority, like it or not, the whiff of corruption will encircle this BOD.

How TH came to know about the call remains unknown, but it must have been someone that blew a whistle.

Diddly squat in the 6th January RNS to give any idea of the settlement value. More in 9th, but the low end settlement based on the lower end damages award would have been much higher, even if you'd halved it. However by then the share price was tanking badly.

LOL yes because I sit there glued to the consol on a Friday from dawn until dusk.

Don't be a berk qdnano, it was clear that the settlement was well below any reasonable expectation based on past communications. You'd have had to be very quick off the mark to lock in 70p or anywhere close to it, and if you're a LTH, then you would have had to work to get a lower average and taken a considerable risk in your investment to do so over the years following repeated disappointments and Edelman's bs.

LOAM still retain a significant share of the company around 14% or circa £8m at present value. RG a different matter, he's below the 3% threshold, so no way of knowing how much he still owns if anything.

I don't hear the names mentioned, but TH says two creditors and shareholders. That narrows it down a bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwnJI_lLsOc&t=28s

Perhaps Nanoco team might consider publishing a recording or transcript of the call. That would put to bed any allegations of malpractice or wrongdoing, assuming everything is kosher.

"I wonder how much BT is paying them for posting sh@t all day "

Hark you!

"breakeven is expected CY25 not as previously advised being CY24 two and a half years from now! "

CY25 is in 17 months you berk.

TG2D, what gives you the confidence you'd be treated fairly under TH's BOD?

They'll still have millions on account after any return to shareholders.

If it turns out to be the case that no contract(s) materialise, then that is the right time to take a look at the BOD. I rather suspect however that a contract is very likely and that TH thinks so too, and therefore he and others see an opportunity to take control when PI's confidence is low.

…and future.

The executive are saying investors were guided by court docket amounts.

So the $6.60 per set multiplied by past sales of 42m worldwide, plus future sales which would need to be estimated, but let’s be charitable and say double past sales even though they’re likely to be far higher, and we’re not even accounting for gen 2 display, so 84m equals $554m.

Nanoco are basically using historic US sales to 2021 only as a metric to gauge a worldwide settlement past and present.