Member Info for Nanonano

Please god no, not another two weeks of this.

Fair enough, it seems I was in error about Edison being mentioned, but as the answer to Q10 is given, the way any figures are arrived at are interpreted by Edison, and not official figures from Nanoco. Plus it also says as you listed that the figure is for historic US sales only. As such it’s highly speculative, so none of us will know the agreed amount until it drops.

Apologies for some of the strange grammar appearing in my last two posts. iPad seems to be throwing me a curve!

Turner Pope we’re quoting the Edison figure, they in turn gave their own estimate, which was lower than Edison. Nanoco have never given a figure for overall damages, they simply say it’s potentially significant and transformative for shareholder value.

Plenty of questions have been pitched to try and winkle out a figure, but they’ve always been deflected, for obvious reasons.

Buzz, BT has never mentioned a figure, that is your supposition, either you’re mistaken or intentionally wishing to mislead. BT said there are three damage award models, low based on materials cost e.g. the Qd’s and film , medium and high, which are more based on the overall value the set acquires by incorporation of Qd’s. No figures were given and Edison were not mentioned.

Link to interim results and questions for those who wish to hear the source

https://youtu.be/BDWwHZFFWFY

So all we know from the RNS, is that the low model based on the cost of materials applies. We don’t know what the value per set/screen is, or even if it’s based on volume of dots used rather than per screen.

The $200-250m that Edison have repeatedly mentioned is an estimate by Edison not Nanoco, and they have always said this for historic sales in the US only, not global, and not future sales.

Therefore if you go by those figures, triple it and then double that figure. Naturally that would give you a very large sum of cash, do I think we’ll get that, we’ll unlikely. Hopefully not as low as some are predicting either.

I would be obliged if you could direct me to where BT states the amount owed is $250m.

I think Edelman jumped before he was pushed. I don't think the company would have been able top conduct a successful fund raise if he'd remained as CEO. Too many great expectations that failed to materialise. BT captains more cautiously, which is why I am more confident of a successful deal. We shall see.

KAIST are just a university, a research institute, they haven't got anything like the resources Samsung have.

The key issue is they were awarded an enormous sum compared to what they asked for. intel and Apple infringed too, but they paid up once rumbled. Only Samsung played it tough.

Yes, but unless Samsung offered them a decent deal, it would be a case of see you tomorrow in court.

If the company comes up with a duff deal after all this caper, they've got some explaining to do to investors.

KAIST asked for about $10m for their FinFET tech IP, Samsung wouldn't play ball, they got hundreds of millions in court.

Samsung versus KAIST?

I haven't bought or sold any Nanoco shares this year. Just holding my position. My average is below current valuations, and I'm confident that even if settlement news is disappointing, any potential dip will temporary.

I have seen some rash valuations on ADVFN, but not here.

Majority of estimates were being based on Edison and Turner Pope figures, the applying potential multipliers for wilfulness, then also looking at future royalty payments and the effect such earnings could potentially have on the company valuation going forward.

So to call posts bluster and denigrate reasonable speculative valuations, then what does that make Edison and Turner Pope?

https://www.semiconductor-today.com/news_items/2023/feb/trumpf-010223.shtml

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1675158703

You’re not alone. Should see an RNS by the weekend.

Reported FH.

You won't hear a whimper out of the likes of FH if this brings home the bacon, they'll disappear like will o' the wisp, then return some time later under another nom de plume.

I agree that the headset will be bristling with sensors, but they may or may not all require QD enhancement. QD's will add cost to the sensor, and if Apple can save a few dollars or even cents on a sensor to get the same outcome, they'll take it.

So I look at a scenario of say two sensors per headset, and more will be a bonus.

AR eye tracking is the most logical application for the tech.

SWIR is considerably more eye safe than NIR, especially for extended periods of use.

I believe that much wider adoption will come with materials with enhanced sensitivity, and also lead free (material B?). It seems the adoption of high resolution high sensitivity under display face ID will become a standard for smart phone, tablet and laptop use.

Wider adoption of AR may come in time, but these things are difficult to predict in terms of consumer acceptance. Until now it's been a bit of a niche/geeky technology rather than something for the masses like smartphones.