Member Info for rc30

I'm sure many LTH here often ponder, what if Nanoco had started off with Hartlove .

Thanks to roadster on advfn
https://ie.globaldatabase.com/company/roaring-waters-capital-limited

Actual bid/ask at the moment is 4.80 v 5.00 and not what you see on lse.

I posted this law review previously but its still a comforting read.
There are some common-and perhaps superficially plausible-explanations for the jury bias allegedly unique or special to the Eastern District of
Texas. One explanation is that East Texas jurors have a great respect for the
government.' 8 The logic here is that patents are issued by the United States
Patent and Trademark Office-a government entity-and therefore, the local
jury is loath to overturn this government.19 In other words, the perception is
that East Texas juries have a rigid and steadfast understanding of the presumption of patent validity.20
Another explanation is that the East Texans have a general distrust of
large corporations.21 Legal observers reason that this is because there are
relatively few large corporations based in East Texas, and corporations accordingly are "likely to be viewed with more suspicion in East Texas than
they are in places like New York, Delaware, or even Dallas."22 There is even
a story that allegedly supports this theory: "The distrust of corporate defendants goes back many decades to the time when the District was a major railroad center, which resulted in many personal injury claims against large
railroad companies."

https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=scitech

They are either shorting or want to try and send the sp down for whatever reason, or they could just be sad r soles.

Yep Zep as you say, was in the area last Saturday and dropped past for a look, That pile of white portakabins indicates to me that things are about to kick off though.

Tre way I heard it was, Linn realised after they had met all the consortium and bankers and formed a good relationship with them ,they could do the job without spoton and save themselves a load of stress and money.

The shorter's must be getting a little anxious.

I did a couple of dummy transactions and the actual bid at the moment is 5.801 and ask 6.025. So the indicated sells on here are actually buys.

This message has been filtered, please adjust your filters to view
This message has been filtered, please adjust your filters to view
This message has been filtered, please adjust your filters to view
This message has been filtered, please adjust your filters to view
This message has been filtered, please adjust your filters to view
I had a full page(25) of gobsh@#ery filtered recently, I do like the lse filter facility as it removes all trace of the gobsh@#es.

Don't the gobsh@#es go quiet when the price ticks up a bit.

Or the head of samsungs legal defence team.
Lol

sorry wrong board.

The Board is also reviewing other parties who may be infringing our IP and, subject to the outcome of the Samsung litigation, these will be pursued vigorously.

The Board is also reviewing other parties who may be infringing our IP and, subject to the outcome of the Samsung litigation, these will be pursued vigorously.

Brian Tenner, Chief Executive Officer of Nanoco Group plc, said:

" Our lawsuit against Samsung for the alleged wilful infringement of Nanoco's IP is progressing well and we are pleased that a trial date has been set for October 2021. We are also pleased with the initial indications arising from last week's hearing and will review the final written report when it is received. Although there can be no certainty as to the outcome, the Samsung litigation could result in a very substantial settlement in our favour."

Surprised to find out the jury in patent cases in the East Texas court are plucked from ordinary god fearing citizens, which in my opinion is even better for Nanoco. Will it actually progress to jury trial, I think not, I think the outcome of the Markman Hearing will be damming for samsung.
https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=scitech

Yes, my laymans take on it is they are calling into question Nanoco's use of terminologies . To me in simplistic terms Nanoco were the only bakers on the planet who could make 100%cadmium free cakes, samsung wanted to buy their cakes "allegedly" so went along to their kitchen and "studied" them making the cakes, having no baking experience whatsoever samsung decide to make their own 100%cadmium free cakes, they are now saying that their recipe is different to Nanoco's and Nanoco's recipe is non specific anyway. But the judge and jury are master bakers and they know samsung could not bake at all prior to meeting Nanoco , let alone know the ingredients of the process, simply saying you mixed things in a different way to achieve your 100% cadmium free cakes is not going to impress these experts imo in fact like me I think it is going to **** them off bigtime.

Yes it was extreme Btb, but i was simply trying to highlight the different levels culpability imo.

When I look at the recent Gamestop phenomenon I must say it gives me a great deal of satisfaction. But I got to thinking about the actions of the much despised shorter's in comparison to the huge corporations who willfully steal a smaller weaker companies IP, knowing they have the financial muscle to act with virtual impunity, doing so in the full knowledge that they could destroy the victim, you could even argue that this would be their ideal scenario. Any right thinking person would say the IP thieves in these cases are the equivalant to premeditated murderers whereas the shorter in comparison is merely a rogue chancer who may resort to dubious activity in pursuit of his ends. Perhaps someone with the time could go on the https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/ site and highlight the scandalous situation that has occurred here and ask the question, what is worse shorting or IP theft?