Member Info for NGR1616

You were not lied to. You saw and heard what you wanted to see and hear. You ignored the nuances, the talk of risk of losing and jury decisions and wilful damages as if they were nailed on certainties whilst all the time being told they would prefer to settle.

What did they guide in the public domain? What possible damages could be awarded in a successful outcome at trail but that their preferred outcome was a negotiated settlement which is precisely what was delivered?

Feeks - $150m is not insignificant and if you think it is that is, then possibly your perspective on that needs to be reconsidered.

FAIR VALUE is an ambiguous statement. I don't believe it's grounds to sue. And retail customers on the whole didn't lose money. I've made money over the years with Nanoco - sell on the news..... Those who bought on the news will have lost out.

That "benchmark" was based on a historical contract with Apple for a handset that was subsequently cancelled. Until it's replaced with a supply contract that is of similar potential it's not relevant.

“If you decide it’s worth a punt” re the court case.

The value equal to the court case he was saying which at the time was around £120m

Are these the sort of terminologies I’ve listed that you feel merit attempting to sue BT when they settled for a sum of $150m which I think we can all agree is only an insignificant sum to the likes of Elon Musk or Bazos.

Ok - so it sounds like you are ignoring everything else iI said about ifs and buts right?

Feeks sorry to repeat this but the phrase relating to multiples of market cap was only in relation to a win and a jury award and the words used (without going back and checking) were more akin to ‘potential’ than ‘will be’.

The presentation you linked uses phrases like “if we win” the jury “comes up with a figure” decides “if wilful” the judge “can apply multiples “ the judge will “make a decision on future royalty or not” he may “mandate but doesn’t have to” and there’s “no such thing as a global patent “.

Putting our differences aside I think we can all agree a settlement would have some sort of discount associated with it.

In the above there are so many variables that I don’t think it’s safe to assume we could achieve the jury decision, a wilful judgement, damages reflecting global sales and avoid a discount in a settlement.

And that’s before we talk about years of appeals, cash and time and validation of IP.

What is the purpose of your psychobabble?

There’s a trend of people believing stuff on the internet as if it’s true. I’m of the belief you are falling for it. In the absence of other evidence it’s the only logical conclusion.

You want to know my anonymous username from +10 years ago? I cancelled it because it suited me at the time. Are you going to try and link that with Nigwit/Terrorwit account because he also changed his username?

What are you talking about? My previous username?

Carbon Nanotubes…

Troublesome why are you continuing to post this nonsense and linking me with Terrorwit. Obviously I’ll be reporting you - again. It would be far simpler if you just stopped living up to your name.

A win in court might have been worth multiples Feeks. BT never said that about a settlement only that it would be fair. People don’t agree with his definition of fair but I doubt that’s grounds for some sort of civil action otherwise I suspect TH would have already pursued that. Of course that doesn’t mean he won’t. I believe he has 5 years from the point of contention to issue a writ.

All of you just rehashing old arguments ant petty disagreements because you are obsessed with it. What a waste of time. Use it instead to wait until October or sell out if you are so disenfranchised.

Groundhog Day again I see.

Troublesome will you leave me out of your petty squabbles please ! Thanks.

Why not ?!

Carry on….

You are a genius for figuring out we are the same poster AND that we sorry I am paid by the company and are in communication with them to manipulate the narrative on here. Can’t believe it took you so long to figure it all out.