Member Info for NGR1616

"Sigh" you go ahead and condescend to your hearts content.

You wrote "So no human influence at all" I corrected you advising there is human involvement and you've since conceded that there is human involvement but wish to disregard it for the purposes of your post.

That's fine but you can't have it both ways if you are going to argue back to my fair point that there is human oversight.

Do they read RNS’s?

You are being disingenuous if you think all algo trades are fully automatic as you imply. There is oversight. How else do you think the algo was created? Who sets the parameters? Skynet?

Algo trades still have human oversight.

See I’ve always said there’s a chance of a settlement ;-)

BT has floated the idea a couple of times so that’s good enough for me to agree with what was previously well minded speculation. It’s possible we could follow a similar path and reach settlement before the end of the trial but not before.

The facts are Nanoco has indicated it’s developing technology for use in autonomous vehicles……..

What was I speculating when I posted something about something people have speculated on before?

nor is there any reason to believe it doesn't. Seems almost like it's perfectly acceptable, nay positively encouraged ok for previous views to speak positively about Apple and LIDAR and Nanoco's potential involvement until it's delayed then it's not ok to discuss.

I heard on Bloomberg this morning the project has been delayed for technical reasons to 2026 and will only be initially for use on highways.

The previous involvement with Apple was related to iPhones not VR/AR headsets. This association is instead thought to be through STMicro unlike the direct Apple link.

I think Monday is now a certainty! ;-)

You have no idea who’s trading these. It’s idle speculation

*you’re

Sammy88 I don’t mean to be negative I’m just trying to keep this particular narrative in perspective. I value your input and I was tongue in cheek about you being a lawyer but of course the negative crew can’t see nuances in text messages!

I don’t think there’s anything childish about spotting an imposter who is posting contradictory messages about lawyers and the legal process. Frankly these types of posts are unhelpful.

All you’ve done is reaffirm my view you’re not a lawyer.

I’d rather follow the company’s guidance they received most likely from the actual lawyers involved in the case thanks.

It’s a big move on low volume. Not many sellers earlier by all accounts.

“Interestingly, the company is now experiencing growing expressions of interest in its display materials. This resurgence has, in part, been triggered by the validation of Nanoco IP by the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Equally, the adoption of Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) type legislation in a number of geographies and a broader focus on environmental issues are also driving interest in Nanoco’s cadmium-free quantum dots (QDs).
Nanoco has now restarted small-scale sampling activity for potential customers and is engaged in technical and commercial propositions with a number of customers. The company is also reviewing non-Samsung QD TVs/displays to gauge whether Nanoco’s IP is being infringed”

Further to these musings, let's not forget that display is back in the focus with small-scale samples being provided to interested parties following an increase in enquiries.

Assuming Samsung were already providing CFQD's to these same 'parties' to make their own TFT/Panels then it is likely those 'parties' would wish to avoid any future disputes with Nanoco.

On the basis that the CFQD's from Nano and CFQD's from Samsung are aligned in terms of construction and performance then it could be a reasonably quick process to validate then move to commercial supply.

All just wishful thinking possibly.