Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Thanks for the replies Morbox , Sammy88. So why no RNS I wonder? Can I be an optimist and hope they are delaying it for a few hours so that it can be combined with the announcement of a very large new order from our European 'customer'
I have only just seen the new court date. What is the view of everyone about the probability of another delay? Do courts give preference to trials that have already been delayed once? Or is it that a delayed trial is put at the end of the list for a date where they think it may be possible there will be pre-trail agreements on other trials already scheduled for the new date? In other words: is a once delayed trial likely to get priority or is it, once delayed, then more likely to be delayed a second time?
Obviously this may not be related to Nanoco but in case anyone is interested to knpow more about Stmicro's new product Vb1940 (second attempt at posting)
'Samples are available now and mass production is planned to meet demand for the model-year 2024 vehicles being designed now.' so timeline sort of fits
https://www.engineersgarage.com/stmicroelectronics-offers-new-hybrid-sensor-for-full-interior-vehicle-monitoring/
@Morbox, that was probably why I couldn't find him, I was looking for 'Zu' and not 'Xu'. My apologies and thanks!
You can probably guess I have a bit of free time today.... so I saw this in the STmirco new products section:
VD1940 Preview (I think that means it's not yet fully available)
Automotive-grade, 5.1 Mpixel image sensor with global shutter and rolling modes for full image resolution and performance, in NIR and RGB
and I wondered could it be Nanoco related as it could fit the bill!
Also, I apologise if this has been noted before but I can't be bothered to read back through all past postings as you lot are just too prolific. So Anyway Nanoco seem to have three vacancies oon their website:
"We are currently recruiting for the following positions:
Multi-skilled Engineer
Process Improvement Leader
Supply Chain Planning Leader"
They could be replacing staff who are leaving but I'm not sure the reason for the third post if they are not expecting some orders soonish! BWTHDIK.
New attorney (Zu Zhao - a fairly common Chinese name I think) to appear for Nanoco. Can't find his/her bio. But maybe suggests something may be starting to move.
Surely a fixed trial date will concentrate minds, whereas If the trial looks like it will be delayed for a long time wouldn't that encourage S to play for time?
Whilst I understand the arguments for licensing rather than manufacturing, it would seem to be a waste having a factory that can produce GBP100m of product a year and not using it for something whether this be CFQD's or the other newer materials.
Lol is your question based on some sort of zen koan along the lines of : ' Listen to the echo before the sound?' or is it based on quantum entanglement of some form? (Just a joke!). Yeah, maybe a settlement or perhaps more simply there are just finding it difficult to find a date where all the key people are available. December ..........2023 anyone?
Only two and a half weeks before 3rd October. So I wonder if there is a minimum time that has to be allowed between the issuing of a scheduling order and the trial start date. I really have no idea how long this might be, but surely they have to give people time to ensure the availability of the witnesses, experts, etc. Two weeks pre-warning' doesn't sound very long for that to me, BWTHDIK. So what do people think? More delay?
@Feeks, First thanks for your reply. Whilst I am obviously very happy for Nanoco to be continually working on R&D and development of new materials for future exploitation, I feel the company desperately needs at least one major product in production or for which we have significant firm orders. Ideally I would also like to see the company have multiple customers as I don't want another 'large american customer' fiasco. So I am still a bit worried this sentence in the RNS is presaging delay for the visibillity of orders this year as discussed in a previous RNS/presentation. I feel the RNS could have been clearer on this point. Could it have been intentionally ambigous? perhaps I am worrying too much! The pressure might be getting to me! Aaaaarrrrrrhhhhhh!
When I first read the following sentence in the RNS:
"This has since been supplemented with additional purchase orders for development and validation materials."
I read this as positive news. However I then started to be a bit of a worry-guts. Why do they need further devlopment and validation materials? Is it (A) there are new (extra) materials being requested for other potential applications or (B) is the 'extra' development required because the original material didn't quite meet requirements and it needs more work and hence another round of validation materials to be tested before it was ready for 'orders'. What do others think? Good news A or bad ish news (B) or maybe an entirely different reason (C) I haven't thought of .
To and thro again and again. A week of this would have been tedious but just about bearable. The thought of going over the same arguments for the next five weeks or maybe longer sinks my spirits. I think I may take a few days off from the baard each week and just look in now and then to see if anything new is being discussed..
Optimism is good and I'm not selling, but any Nanoco LTH that believes that Nanoco can't produce nasty surprises or snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory are hoping in spite of experience and need to be encouraged to consider the possibility of 'failure' as well as success. My comment was for balance It wasn't deramping. - but a lot of people seem to only have their rose tinted glasses on. So far we have no real evidence of the organic business taking off soon. Whilst I suspect we will get order eventually, I also think the chances of delays are more than at least 50-50.
hawi, yes Tthere could be other positive news by then but let's be even handed - there could be negative news by then too. Do delays come in pairs? Maybe the 'Stmicro' orders will be delayed too. Glass half full or half empty!
@NGR1616, whether Samsung have anything to lose must surely depend on what it would take to settle the case with Nanoco now as opposed to after the trial and on Samsung's assessment of their chances of success etc.. And so to me it seems that a lot depends on Nanoco's red lines. I guess it is now looking like we arre going to trial. But anything can happen.
A bit of a small SP pull back this am. Obviously the main interest is in what the SP will be after the trial (assuming it happens) but it is also quiet interesting to see how the SP moves (or doesn't) in the interim. Will more people pile in ? Or will the bigger investors take some guaranteed profits? And if SP changes occur pre-trial or during trial when will they occur? Will some bigger players actual watch the trial and try to double guess the jury's decisions based on how they think the trial is going? Hard to believe the day of the trial is now so close. It has been a long road!
Although I have looked on the internet and it does seem to me that strictly speaking the Judge can overrule the jury's verdict and compensation amount. However, although I have no legal training whatsoever, my reading of this is that this option is to be used in extreme cases only. Basically when the jury comes to a decision that no reasonable person could come to given the evidence. If I usderstand correctly the compensation awarded can also be increased or decreased by the judge but again only when the amounts are 'patently unreasonable. In short I think the chances of the judge in the case changing the jury's decisions are almost ZERO.
So not sure I want to buy/sell any Nanoco shares before the trial given it is so near now, but I do wonder whether when the US market opens tomorow it will add to the rise today or provoke a pull back. or simply have no effect at all. I, like some others, thought there might be an RNS sometime about now informing us of litigation in additional countries/geographical zones. I suppose there are arguments both ways for proceding before the trial or waiting until afterwards before doing that.
I know everyone is balking at talking high numbers. Nobody wants to ramp, everyone wants to be appearbto be reasonable. But wanting to appear to be resonable can also blind us to possibillities/probabilities. So I'm going to stick my neck out to even up the bias towards wanting to appear reasonable. First I know nothing is certain. I am not saying it is. However after thinking about it for quite a while and arguing with myself up and down I finally realise I think what is most likely to happen is (1) we will win the court case, (2) the jury will find the infringement was wilful, and (3) they will accept the fact that the whole market for CFQD TVs arose out of nanoco tec and as such Nanoco are entitled to a share of the whole profits. Exactly what share I don't know. But already based on what I expect to happen the 'reasonable' people here are seriously underestimating the size of the (what I believe is) most pobable award, On the other side of the scales if we lose the court case it could be and probably would be terminal for nanoco as an independent company. Why should anyone pay for their patented tec if they can just use it without paying? So a lot of risk here but the rewards are also very large. All obviously IMHO so DYOR. GLA all.