Member Info for NGR1616

Ok who asked that question? Seriously. If you are a regular poster here just leave and never return.

If it was you, it would have a post script “and there’s still a chance of a settlement despite what the CEO has said!”

Good RNS I’m so far as the revenue increase in % terms and £ is higher than anticipated and there’s nothing negative. Any real ‘action’ will happen during the cast.

Sammy88 “ Anyway, I don't think you can read too much into this.….” but you gave it a good go ;-).

Glad you saw the intent of my post gents!

this is why questions should be single part, relevant, unambiguous or better still, left to people who know how to frame questions properly. I recommend we don't flood the co with questions. I of course on the other hand have asked mine and it's a cracker!

Really?

Quelle surprise! If NigWit/ty wanted to post do you think he’d close his account and post under another name? Muppet. You’re really like the conservative just now.

Intrusivethought - looking at your posts perhaps a rethink of your moniker in in order? You rarely post more than a few words usually disparaging against those opposed to your view……how about lackingoriginalthought?

Not sure we’re all adults…….

That’s also my view. I’m certainly not banking on the case.

Nanogeddon….If you’re that sure bet the house. The end.

I think we’re all aware of nailed on sure fire bets. This one is as good as they come, but it’s in no way a certainty. Anyone who thinks that should sell and never buy another stock again!

I’d say it’s 50/50

In context one could argue his position either way. I’ve taken it that he was simply expecting a settlement. Also suggestions that Samsung should settle to avoid multipliers implies to me that he’s not seeing both sides of the argument. I agree that a settlement is a great outcome and possibly on balance of probabilities a likely one but that’s only the case from one perspective. The other is they feel they can argue they have not infringed and it’s this that hasn’t been accepted by Sammy88. Until the trial both of us are equally correct you could argue but when the trial starts-as guided by the CEO as guided by their legal team, then I’d say the settlement outcome is actually the less likely outcome.

I’m expressing alternative views and pointing out intransigence in relation to Sammy88’s conclusions the Samsung have no case to win and should settle imminently -as he’s been saying for months. His position on this suggests to me a lack of understanding of the very profession he professes to be part of.
I’ll stop saying awful things like ffs and fk in future if that’s preferred but I’m not going to sit back watching a single biased narrative.

Boraciclint that’s how I see it as well broadly.

If we do go to court, explain to me samsungs’ rationale someone!?

You might work for a law firm but you are no more a lawyer than I am

It links perfectly. The mediation failed. Samsung one would presume made it perfectly clear they have no intention of settling for whatever the offer Nanoco made which is presumably reflective of what BT said they think they are due. So we’re going to court!! If you’re a corporate lawyer Sammy88, so am I.

This is all about the jury. If it weren’t for that I’d favour the chances of a settlement before a hearing in front of a judge. But I think S believe they have a better than 50:50 chance of arguing the case. There’s conflicting expert opinions and the IP might not be as watertight as we hope. Hence “we’re going to court “