Member Info for TerrorWit

Silent readers find it easy to see the complete lack of critical thinking skills and insults triggered by naming the truth.

'Compensation' and 'Consideration' are different legal concepts with distinct meanings - as anyone can look up.

We have done this before.

--------

The problem with this forum is that it has beocme a stage for the performance of a single poster who:-

1. Believes he can divine the contents confidential terms

2. Bleives he is an accountant

3. Believes he is a litigation lawyer

4. Believes he is a qualified company director.

He can not tolerate the concept that he is none of the above nor accept that he is guessing. He believes his guesses are as good as the opinions of posters who have been in the room, or who do understand accountancy and law. When confronted with better knowledge he feels justified in issuing insults and belittling them.

You can also look up Dunning-Kruger syndorme.

Given that Nanoco has already earned $155m from the same patents, why would anyone assume they'd give them away for free? That's an emotional and illogical conclusion.

If there aren't any royalties, there will be some other substantial consideration. The confidential terms exist for a reason.

Nanonano is now making the same mistake as Kooba: assuming that because royalties aren't mentioned in the RNS, they don't exist. But that's not how confidentiality works. The company has stated that confidential terms exist. Royalties, which are normally confidential, could be part of those terms.

Kooba, I’d like to be entertained by a comic so why don’t you explain once more how a loss making company can pay taxes by surrendering tax credits. That one always has my accountant in stitches too.

Kooba is still stuck on the same loop: "no royalties because they would have to be disclosed”. He’s ignoring the confidentiality of standard royalty terms, and the fact that Shoei's expanding display business gives Nanoco significant leverage — which is exactly why the settlement happened.

Shoei's expanding display business shows they had no choice but to settle as soon as possible. A permanent licence to Nanoco's foundational patents would naturally include ongoing royalties — the terms of which would be kept confidential.

Kooba, your joke about terrorwits was funny but reading your analysis is akin to observing a proctologist trying to examine a patient with a popisical.

Why this forum is gormless speculation

Three examples:

1. "The company is running out of money and can't enforce its patents."

Wrong. The company recently sought a court order to join Apple in a counterclaim against Shoei. That's not the act of a cash‑strapped business afraid to enforce its IP.

2. "The settlement includes no royalty agreements."

Wrong. Royalties are the standard way to monetise patents — and they are almost always confidential. The company has stated that confidential terms exist. You can't claim royalties don't exist just because you can't see them.

3. "The company has never made any money."

Wrong. The company has paid tax on its profits.

The thread title is a masterpiece of unintentional honesty. "I hereby gormlessly speculate" — that's exactly what's happening.

Nanonano, just because Shoei didn't act in good faith before the litigation doesn't mean they're still acting in bad faith after the settlement. The whole point of the lawsuit was to force a resolution and clear the path. Now it's settled.

Kooba, Shoei Chemical is a private company. It doesn't publish announcements.

The only public information is what Nanoco has disclosed. That's what I'm using. A lot of material information is confidential anyway.

You're gaslighting me by suggesting I've categorically stated there are royalties — I haven't - I said we don’t know. And you're demanding that royalty terms, if they exist, be made public by a private company that has no obligation to provide them. That’s tells us more about your ignorance than it does about Nanoco.

Yesterday I gave you the example of Walt Disney, which has many royalty agreements, the details of which it never discloses. You lost the argument. Now you're sneering.

Bachatanut, I realise I didn't fully understand your question. If Shoei and Nanoco were concerned about treading on each others toes, they would have included appropriate clauses in the agreement. You're assuming bad faith. I'm not - because I don’t think they will want to end up in court again.

Okay. I don’t think they will breach the agreement and it’s such a wild suggestion to think they might that I don’t believe it merits any more thought.

Nanoco was ready to sue Apple — that's a fact. The JDAs exist — that's a fact. You can speculate about what happens next. That's your free choice and I don’t hold it against you.

I prefer to base my risks on the company's own signals, not on noise from the forum.

That’s a statement of the obvious Kooba. Returns require commensurate risks.

*to sue Apple

Kooba, that's a lot of words to say you don't know either.

You're parsing "in" vs "for" 2027, demanding detail you don't have, and using the price as your only evidence. The company stated its aim, cleared the path, and is executing. You can call that speculation. I call it guidance.

The point that only a confident Business would be ready for due Apple stands. You can't bury it in noise or verbosity.

As to my personal view : Only a few weeks ago the company was ready to sue Apple. That is not the act of timid business worried about cash.

Bachunut, the company's own guidance is the basis for my comment - not speculation.