Member Info for TerrorWit

Kooba asks again why Shoei would buy Nanoco. They're not buying. It's a cross‑license.

He asks what's being negotiated now. Royalties, netting, reporting — the structure of a fair, ongoing arrangement.

He can keep asking the same questions. The answers don't change.

I'll wait for the final agreement.

Feeks says Nanoco "generated 9‑figure settlements from a 10‑figure base."

A 10‑figure base would be $1bn or more. There's no precedent for that in quantum dot patent litigation. No case has ever produced a billion‑dollar settlement. Samsung's $150m was already way above the top end of any comparable case concluded.

Feeks isn't analysing. He's describing a fantasy that was never on the table. Now he's angry that reality didn't deliver it.

That's not a critique of Nanoco. It's a confession of delusion.

Feeks says "valued at less than cash" as if it's a failure -That's the opportunity.

Nanonano says "no visibility of further business." The JDAs are visibility. They're in progress.

If they're not negotiating licenses, royalties, and reporting right now, what do they suppose is going on?

I’ll wait.

A company that has generated nine-figure settlements, cleared its path in a new market, and still holds a strong cash position, has done exactly what it set out to do: build value from its intellectual property.

Profit is profit. The source doesn't make it less real.

For four years, this forum has been flooded with certainty about failure, attacking anyone positive, dismissing every piece of good news — creating a wall of noise that scares off new buyers.

The result? An illiquid stock, a price stuck in the basement, and a retail base that's either given up or become cynical.

Meanwhile, the company still has its cash, its patents, its cleared path in sensing, and its JDAs. Now litigation is settled and job ads are running.

Noise doesn't change facts.

Kooba, you're confusing two different legal terms.

"Compensation" in the RNS refers to the litigation — past costs and damages. That's what "no compensation" means.

"Consideration" is what makes a contract binding. It doesn't have to be cash, but it normally is cash. A promise in exchange for a promise — like a cross‑license — is valid consideration.

If you look up the legal definition, you'll see the difference.

The deal has consideration. It's the cross‑license. What's being negotiated now is the detail: royalties, netting, reporting.

You can keep saying there's nothing. I'll wait for the final agreement.

A few things from today.

Kooba insists that because the RNS didn't disclose value, there is no value. But the Samsung RNS said nothing about value either. That came later — when the deal was done. Same here. There is an obligation on the company not to disclose anything commercially sensitive, even when Kooba asks.

Vegeta posted a job ad. A company that's "finished" doesn't recruit.

And let's be clear about what "finished" would actually mean. Nanoco has ~£15m in the bank, no debt, and a cash runway measured in years. That's not a company on the edge. That's a company with time, options, and a cleared path in sensing.

What's being negotiated now is the structure of the ongoing relationship — royalties, netting, reporting.

You can call that a loss if you want. I call an end to years of patent litigation across two product categories.

I'll wait for the final agreement and tune out the noise

Again, What is it that you believe they’re negotiating then?

Sammy88, you're forgetting that the $5m from LG was compensation for past infringement — the products Shoei supplied. Nanoco wasn't seeking more until Shoei started the case.

The settlement closes the past. "No compensation" means that. A cross‑license is about the future: clearing sensing, ongoing royalties, a clean path forward.

That's what the 30‑day window is for. Not a windfall. A structure

If I were in Nanoco's position, I'd be discussing the respective values of the IP and designing a mechanism to make sure each side gets fair value for their inventions from here on.

A sale seems unlikely. The CDX process already ran. Shoei had their chance. And a sale would have been in the headline.

What we have is a cross‑license. The 30‑day window is for the terms: royalty rates, netting, reporting — the mechanics of a fair, ongoing arrangement.

That's what I'm waiting to see.

What is it that you believe they’re negotiating then?

I’ve said I’m waiting for the company to explain. You’re waiting to mock whatever they say.

Here’s the difference:

· I want to understand.

· You only want to be right.

Remember, Nanoco didn't sue Shoei. Shoei acted first.

Perhaps Nanoco knew about Shoei's sensing patents all along — and knew those patents could be used to enhance their own products. So they used the value of their display claim not for a cash payout, but to improve their offer in sensing. Perhaps that's why they never put a value on the litigation.

You can keep calling it a loss. I'll wait for the company to explain.

I've answered your question. I've explained the value. I've said I'm waiting for the company to fill in the details — several times.

You're now reduced to calling me a "puffer" with "no substance."

Anyone reading can see who's actually saying something and who is performing.

Until this settlement, there was no conversation on this forum about Shoei having any patents in sensing. Kooba assumes Nanoco gave away display for nothing — but he doesn't know the patent landscape, because no one here has read all Shoei's patents.

That's why I'm waiting for the company to explain the deal. They have the experts. They've read the patents. They concluded clearing the sensing path was worth the price. I trust them to have made the right call. That's why I'm an investor. Perhaps they have been able to use the settlement to broaden their offer and create new opportunities.

You can keep asking how this has value. I'll wait for the company to tell us. Because unlike Kooba, I don’t claim to be able to divine the future.

You have now collapsed fully into personal abuse.

I don't know the answer to your question, as I have repeatedly said, I am waiting to find out from the company. This is what any wise investor does.

"I think bugger all."

Well, there we have it — the whole unsophisticated shallowness of Kooba's ability to analyse a complex stock.

After four years and hundreds of posts containing nothing but inane guesses, bullying, infantile name‑calling, and deflection, that's the sum of it.

I'll wait for the final agreement. He'll wait for something else.

Kooba, I’m still waiting- you haven't answered the question I asked you from last night.

Since you're so certain it's a loss, what details do you think will emerge in the final agreement?

I'll wait.

Again.

Feeks is still quoting me, thinking it's a gotcha. It isn't.

I said the price was absurdly pessimistic. I said the exact number would come from a settlement or judgment. I said we'd watch the docket.

That's exactly what happened.

The settlement came. The terms are being finalised. The litigation risk is gone.

If you think that quote proves I was wrong, you're welcome to explain how. But quoting me back at me doesn't make me wrong. It just shows you’re desperate to be right that you’re going back over my words hoping they'd might turn into something they never were.

The litigation risk has gone. The market is just starting to price that in.