Member Info for NGR1616

Now projecting into the Nanoco workers psyche. What imagined scenario are we coming up with next?

I’d rather you kept your faux concerns to yourselves.

Indeed

Troublesome you just post irrelevance

Nobody apart from you and Kooba has ever mentioned quality. And suddenly it’s an issue. Have a word with yourself

You do get on my nerves but you’ll never touch them. I normally can’t be bothered reading your posts let alone responding but sometimes I can’t resist. I also hadn’t appreciated you can’t reply unless invited.

This thread is desperately bad. It’s moot. You’re retort is also moot something about discussing quality 💤

Troublesome you are posting nonsense

Cue a period of tag team doubling down

You’re just sewing seeds of doubt followed up by nonsense. You could equally write about how after a long R&D process methods were tested and implemented to ensure a consistent high quality end product in volume. Pointless discussion.

Gen II scheduled (based on rumours) for 2025 earliest . Like all of your hunches, wrong.

We shall see. I wouldn't be surprised if they happen in tandem, i.e. we've validated the product and here's your order.....but equally it could be we've validated your products but the end user has yet to order from us.....ergo

Shock horror I just ticked up Koobas post !

It ha s been unfortunate but as a long term holder I’m ok with it and perhaps that’s partly why I’m not bent out of shape by it all

The market clearly got carried away with expectations.

The board gave guidance that it MIGHT win in court and the award COULD be quite high but I bet you missed everything they said about losing and low awards and appeals at the time. The market got carried away with the prospect of easy money and its no different to the expectations of an oil strike for a small cap oiler drilling an exploration well.....there were no guarantees here and there are no guarantees there. You just have to take your medicine and move on.

Kooba, I genuinely get the disappointment, I felt it too but I was able to get past it and understood that we can often misread guidance because we see what we want to see. I think the reality is the lost license income or revenue was not supposed to be crossread directly to the potential damages model. It’s only one of many factors to help investors work out their own assessments based on their legal expertise and the risks including the LOAM and RG’s and us of this world. Perhaps as lay investors we simply don’t have the knowledge experience or resources or connections to understand what it all might mean but we know now and should learn from it. There were other factors it seems such as reputation and tax and perhaps that’s where the patents come in but they are not exactly important when you look at some of them

You assumed the information you were being given was unimpeachable, that a win was guaranteed without knowing what Samsung's defence looked like and you didn't consider that the company would settle and that settlement would always come with a discount.

We know that the company would have had to borrow or dilute to survive in an increasingly inflationary market with much higher interest rates assuming it did win. The award on winning could have been very low as BT commented on post settlement, what we got was higher than their lowest outcome model.

We know the company now has validated IP and is making progress now the court case is behind us, isn't having to dilute or borrow yet you still seem to think this was all a criminal fraudulent outcome and a settlement should have been for $750m or more.

The reason the share price is as low as it is is because of people like you selling when you were disappointed. The MM's would have had a field day. Since then you've gone out of your way to discredit the company and the board.

Well done.

Oh dear you really are an embittered individual unable to see the bigger picture and - because you got it wrong....well it must be someone else fault and it must be fraud. What a sad conclusion.

Hardly grounds for calling the BoD crooks and villains in other words?

You clearly didn't understand what they said:

"Although the value of a potential payout has not been disclosed, we calculate that lost revenue in the United States attributable to the patent infringement to date could be in the region of US$200–250m or more. Any damages awarded could also make an additional allowance for future sales of infringing TVs and a possible uplift for wilfulness"

The potential applications are significant that’s for sure

It could be camera applications for AF Iris tracking. Canon had a prototype in use at the Olympics and it's launch is delayed into 2024 on the same sort of timeline.