Member Info for TerrorWit

The two of you are just rambling incoherently now. Desperate.

Https://url-shortener.me/HV2M

· The litigation asset had value.

· That value was realised in a cross‑license.

· That cross‑license clears Nanoco's path in sensing.

No one — including Nanoco — said there would be a cash settlement.

The value was never guaranteed to come as a cheque. It came as freedom to operate in the market where the company is actually building its future.

That's not a loss. That's a strategic outcome.

"Compensation" in the RNS refers to the litigation — past costs, past damages, past infringement. That's what the "no compensation" line is about.

What's being negotiated now is the future: ongoing royalties, patent sales, the structure of the cross‑license. Those are not "compensation" for past acts. They're the terms of a going‑forward relationship.

Conflating the two is either a misunderstanding or a deliberate misreading.

The deal isn't about what's behind us. It's about what comes next. And on that front, Nanoco cleared its path in sensing — where its future actually lies. That's a huge market according to all industry analysts.

You're welcome to keep arguing about display. I'll be watching the market Nanoco is actually building

"Something has occurred here, and I suspect it wasn't in Nanoco's favour. Either it has been made clear to Nanoco that they're in for a long drawn out legal battle which they can ill afford without third party funding, or late in the day Shoei revealed some proprietary methods that cast doubt on Nanoco's claim of infringement."

This is groundless superstition that ignores the whole value of sensing.

Nanoco cleared its path in a market where its JDAs already sit. That's not a loss. It's a strategic resolution.

You're guessing at hidden defeats. I'm reading the deal that's in front of us.

Feeks quotes my words back at me, thinking it's a "gotcha" — but it only proves I was consistent, patient, and right about the direction.

· I said the litigation asset had value -It did — in the form of a cross‑license that clears Nanoco's path in sensing.

· I said we'd have to wait - We're still waiting for the final terms.

You're trying to use my words against me. But my words are the only ones that held up

Since you're so certain it's a loss, maybe you can tell us what details will emerge in the final agreement over the next 30 days.

I'll wait.

As I said earlier, you're not analysing the news — because it hasn't fully emerged yet. You're fitting it — forcing it into a pre‑existing narrative that has nothing to do with Nanoco and everything to do with your own needs to be right.

That's not analysis. That's projection.

I'll wait for the details

Everyone's focused on display — but look at what Nanoco got in sensing.

Shoei has patents in sensing. They've just agreed not to sue Nanoco, its customers, or its suppliers for using them.

Why does that matter? Because Nanoco's JDAs are in sensing. Their entire commercial future is there and it’s a potentially massive market that Shoei will walk away from

Shoei didn't give that up for nothing. They gave it up because they needed display freedom — and Nanoco had them in a corner.

That's not a small thing. That's a cleared path in the market Nanoco is actually building.

The market will figure this out eventually. But it's worth noting now

You're trying to discredit me because I hit a nerve when I said you've spent four years since the Samsung case punishing Nanoco in public for doing a perceived injustice to you.

That's not analysis. That's projection.

And posting definitions of "covenant" and "licence" doesn't change the fact that a promise not to sue is functionally identical to permission to use. Which is what a licence is.

You're arguing semantics. I'm reading the deal.

A covenant not to sue is a licence.

A quiet observation.

Last night I said we'd likely get a holding RNS today and be told to wait for more news. That's exactly what happened. I also said I didn’t want to predict the structure or value of the settlement, that is still the case too.

Some are already calling this a loss based on what isn't in today's announcement. But the RNS was never going to give us the full picture today. It was always going to be a placeholder while the final terms are negotiated.

We're being told to wait. So I'm waiting.

That's not optimism or pessimism. It's understanding how business and litigation work from someone who’s been in the room.

The problem here is that you're all trying to squeeze the news into your own personal narratives before we know the details.

That’s not analysis – it’s performance.

Let’s be crystal clear …

Shoei haven't got what they wanted, which was a clear declaration that they weren't infringing."

They filed this case to clear their name. Instead, they settled for a licence — which is functionally an admission that they needed one.

Kooba

That's exactly the point. It's all assumptions and guesswork — on your side.

Nothing in your exposition is a given. It's all irrelevant or unknowable. You're condemning a deal before seeing the terms, while accusing me of guessing.

I'm the one waiting for the details. You're the one declaring it a loss.

That's not analysis. That's projection and ego.

Kooba, you can call me a lying clown if it helps. But I'm not the one condemning the deal before knowing the details.

You and others are already calling this a loss — without knowing the terms.

We have 30 days for a reason. The confidential part of the term sheet matters. Royalties, patent sales, reciprocation mechanisms — all of that takes time to structure.

Judging a deal before you've seen it isn't analysis. It's projection and ego.

I'll wait for the details.

Forgive me but I’ve done nothing but:

· Read the docket.

· Cite facts.

· Offer a framework.

· Invite correction.

· Stayed calm.

If you call that "gaslighting." — it's a confession.

What we're seeing today is a fair agreement that works for both sides. Nanoco keeps sensing — where its JDAs are. Shoei keeps display — where its customers are. No cash changes hands, but both now have a clear path forward.

Some are calling this a loss because they were hoping for a windfall. But that's their problem, not the company's. They brought their own expectations to the situation, and now they're disappointed the reality didn't match them.

That's not analysis. That's projection. And it's history repeating itself — because it's the same people who thought Samsung would pay $1 billion and who have been punishing Nanoco by constantly complaining about the injustice they perceive publicly ever since.

You've invented a version of me that doesn't exist, then claimed that version said something that suits your narrative — instead of looking at yourself.

The problem here is that posters got carried away with the prospect of a sudden windfall in a legal case that Nanoco didn’t start themselves. This is just history repeating itself and a failure to learn lessons of the past. No one ever said that there would be a quick, easy and large profit for retail investors.