Member Info for TerrorWit

I don't understand why anyone thinks Shoei is suddenly interested in sensors. The settlement specifically carved out sensing for Nanoco — Shoei covenanted not to sue Nanoco or its customers for using Shoei's sensing patents. That doesn't mean Shoei can't compete, but it does mean they can't use their patents to block Nanoco and isn’t the behaviour of a company ready to development a new market.

And Nanoco is the one with the long‑term JDAs in sensing, not Shoei.

Kooba has taken several paragraphs to say “everything will be alright if Nanoco execute”.

All the rest is noise and performance.

Kooba's long, defensive posts — filled with personal attacks, tax‑credit diversions, and re‑litigation of past arguments — are. exactly the responses of someone who feels threatened by an alternative calm, factual presence.

Bachatanut, you're focusing on the exact number and forgetting the LG payment — $90m after legal fees, $150m before. It doesn't change the point. Nanoco generated substantial value and made a profit from its IP. That's a fact.

As for "gormless speculation" — you're speculating about failure. I'm pointing to the company's own guidance and the cleared path. We're both speculating. The difference is I'm not pretending to know the future.

Notice how some posters completely ignore the fact that Nanoco has already generated $155m from its IP and paid tax on profits. That doesn't fit the narrative, so they pretend it doesn't exist.

Everything will be alright if Nanoco can execute. There's no reason to think they won't at the moment.

If you weren't prepared to see it through, you shouldn't have got involved. And if all you can do is insult other investors and create performative noises on forums, then I think you're the pathetic one

Noise, not signal. All of that will change fast if the company executes as currently guided

Maybe you couuld look less often.

Yet you hide your dissatisfaction so well.

Interim results are due anytime now

The company has guided several times that it has sufficient funds to reach breakeven.

If that assessment had materially changed, the board would normally be expected to update the market. No such update has been issued.

The addressable market is not opaque - it has been outlined repeatedly in company presentations.

In any case, that’s a different topic from the discussion about settlement confidentiality.

Materiality depends on both the magnitude and the certainty of value.

A contingent royalty mechanism could exist without producing precise or material information today. For example, it could depend on future sales volumes or product adoption.

And to be clear, my earlier point was that the confidential terms themselves are material — not that their detailed mechanics must necessarily be disclosed.

Kooba

We now seem to agree on the key point — disclosure depends on materiality and precision, not simply on whether a mechanism exists.

So the absence of a disclosed royalty does not allow outsiders to conclude what mechanisms may or may not exist within confidential terms

Kooba

You are asserting as a matter of fact that any royalty mechanism would have to be disclosed.

Can you point to examples of companies that publish the detailed royalty mechanics of individual licensing agreements?

Across the technology and semiconductor sectors, companies typically disclose that agreements exist and report licensing or royalty revenue in aggregate. They do not publish the commercial mechanics of specific agreements because those terms are commercially sensitive.

For example, companies such as Arm, IQE and Cambridge Display (historically) report total licensing and royalty revenue, but the royalty rates and structures agreed with individual licensees remain confidential.

So the existence of confidential terms in an agreement does not allow outsiders to infer their detailed contents either way.

Kooba

The regulatory point is more nuanced than you suggest.

MAR requires disclosure of precise inside information likely to have a significant effect on the share price. It does not require publication of the detailed commercial mechanics of agreements, particularly where value may be contingent or uncertain.

So announcing that a settlement exists does not necessarily mean every possible licensing mechanism within the confidential terms must be disclosed.

For example, as I have already shown, companies such as Walt Disney generate substantial income from licensing agreements yet report the aggregate licensing revenue rather than the commercial mechanics of individual agreements.

So the existence of confidential terms in a commercial agreement does not allow outsiders to infer their detailed contents either way.

The confidential terms mean outsiders cannot know whether royalties exist or not.

Nanonano, if there's a royalty, they won't disclose it because it's commercially sensitive information that would prejudice future negotiations. I have to ask — have you ever run a business?

Nanonano, disclosing the specific terms of a royalty agreement would prejudice all future royalty negotiations. That would be commercial suicide. The most the company will ever disclose is total royalty income from all aggregated sources.

Kooba

That’s not quite how disclosure works.

Companies must disclose known material financial impacts. They are not required to publish the detailed commercial mechanics of agreements, especially where value is contingent, uncertain, or commercially sensitive.

So the existence of confidential terms does not allow you to conclude what those terms contain either way. It is therefore not valid to assume there are no royalties based solely on the public information.

One small legal clarification that might help the discussion.

In settlement agreements “compensation” normally refers to payment for past harm or infringement, whereas “consideration” is the value exchanged to form the agreement itself (which can include things like cross-licences, covenants not to sue, or other commercial rights).

So a statement that no compensation is payable usually means there is no damages payment for past claims. It does not necessarily describe the full commercial structure of the agreement going forward — especially where detailed terms are confidential.

NN

You’re still conflating two different statements.

Discussing a possible mechanism within confidential terms is not the same as claiming that mechanism exists.

My point has been consistent: the detailed terms are confidential, so outsiders cannot know the economic structure of the agreement. Royalties are one possible natural mechanism among several, but so are other forms of consideration.

So explaining why royalties could exist is not the same as claiming they do.