Member Info for NGR1616

Second post to correct the first….. I meant now this place is only a ****ing contest but I’m sure you got the drift.

This place has ceased to be anything other than a ****ing contest. Why don’t you all shut the **** up amd wait then once we know everyone or one can say I told you so!

Feeks that last post really is stretching credibility. It was entirely about cooling the market.

The MCap has been high before on Apple potential before any mention of litigation.
If that work has continued under STM then that potential remains regardless of the litigation outcome and forms at least part of the mcap.

Sammy88 …….” Nothing since then, particularly nothing posted on this board, has caused me to reconsider that prediction”

FK me! Ok I hope you’re right but I seriously think not and that you might have issues if “nothing” has made you reconsider that prediction ……

Wishful thinking SL but you never know

maqsood7 you seem to be the one claiming the Sp will be at least double from where it now.....?

MAQSOO7 "Don’t know where people get the numbers from, but nano will be at least double in price where it is now….."

Where do you get this number from?

Bingo you missed the part about borrowing costs. Christopher Richards said "rising interest rate environment" suggesting it is Nanoco's interest to settle now rather than wait longer and be exposed to the lending environment unnecessarily. All of this impacts the settlement figure but ultimately we have to trust that the board sees this as the most sensible outcome - more later at greater cost now isn't a good mantra.

There’s already been confirmation from BT that this outcome “further reinforces our confidence in the validity and enforceability of the Group’s global patent portfolio”. He goes on to say “demonstrates willingness to vigorously defend our global IP portfolio against any potentially infringing parties in the wider market.”

To me that can be taken two ways.
One it is aimed at other ‘users’ of CFQD’s in display, or Two it’s a warning to any other ‘users’ of CFQD’s in any application using Nanoco’s patented methods.

BT had previously said in a presentation I think that they would defend ‘display’ IP infringement beyond Samsung. So I think it’s both.

There are a few ways of doing this calculation- avg per unit, price per sqm, historical sales, future sales and these prices and volumes and CAGR are not constants. This is likely where much of the discussion is between the lawyers just now.

So Feeks and anyone else…..
“ Low end: damages based on the value only of the QD film in the displays."
Anyone want to put a number (s) on this?

Edison are not a broker. They are a research / investor relations house and are paid a fee by nanoco. They are given information directly which is disseminated in their research notes to add colour to announcements etc.

As such what they publish is pretty important.

The phrase “transformative” can be used in many different contexts. Rather than arbitrarily applying it to pure financial reward to share holders overnight, I prefer to look at it as unburdening the company from question over the validity of the IP, the uncertainty of a court case with all the appeal processes and delays and an opportunity to put a “firm base” under the finances.

This all sounds good to me, and if meaningful additional revenue were to follow then that would be a transformation for the company.

I appreciate BT’s comments were at the time specific in nuance about the potential from a jury award but that’s no longer applicable.

P3n15. You are just being disruptive for no good reason FH and it’s boring.

How many shares do you hold Hawi?

My goal is to be a multi millionaire. That’s why I invested in Nanoco and hold as many shares as I do but the settlement might mean that isn’t achievable. Stating my opinion on this against others previously suggesting the settlement might net $500m is frankly sensible not disruptive. I’m not trading the share so your narrative doesn’t fit.

No you can’t. Opinion is one thing. Statements like that are another thing entirely.

Mad. “Trial” ???!!!

I genuinely can’t be hooped reading everything but is $219m now set in stone as the accepted conservative figure for the settlement? Did we RNS BT and Samsung?