Member Info for TerrorWit

Yes, I was warned that you'd try to gaslight my ability to deconstruct reality with emotional noise.

As always has been so

... and this is why Nanoco have to sell. Apple won't tolerate having such a small, critical supplier in the chain. They would require that Sony own Nanoco.

Well I've been in discussions with both Deep Seek and Chat GPT all afternoon, testing hypothesis and my investment thesis. It seems that the most likely scenario (>60% probability) may be that the Asian partner is Sony who supply sensors to Apple and that they're picking up from STM Micro. In this scenario and based on their typical past aquisistion strategy, Sony would look to acquire Nanoco after a design win from Apple placing a realistic value on the shares of 100p+.

The mid range valuation for the LG Case is £15m, which would extend cash to 2030, making the shares a one way bet.

There are other less likely scenarios, which you can test yourselves if you ask the right questions in the right ways, but ultimatley the current mCap is fully supported by cash.

"although I can’t imagine if Nanoco executives thought a cash bonanza was within a years reach in sensor materials, that they’d be looking for a buyer."

Really? When else would you sell? I'd say it was the perfect time.

You can ask Chat GPT to provide an analysis of the legal settlement. I did and this is its final verdict (after it provided a lot of context).

🧠 Verdict: The settlement was likely 60–80% of Nanoco’s realistic, risk-adjusted trial value

While it may look small against a best-case $400M award, when you apply legal risk, time value of money, appeals, and funder cuts, the $150M cash settlement was a rational, even savvy, de-risking move.

Good to note that AI is catching up with my views after nearly three years :)

"I’m using the information provided by the companies for lost revenue in royalties had the original contract with Dow been honoured for supply. "

-----------

Yes, I know, but no-one ever said that was the whole basis on which a settlement would be calculated. You assumed.

From Chat GPT

As a general point: it is usually unwise for retail shareholders to spend significant time posting negative, repetitive comments about companies they hold shares in—especially in public online forums.

Here’s why:

🔻 1. It rarely influences the company

Public forums like LSE, ADVFN, or Reddit aren’t monitored seriously by institutional investors or company boards.

Companies respond to regulatory filings, activist funds, or formal shareholder letters—not emotional venting.

Repetitive posting often becomes noise, not signal.

💥 2. It can hurt their own investment

Negative sentiment—especially if it goes viral—can deter potential investors, even if it’s based on opinion rather than fact.

It may depress share price by creating an illusion of internal discord or instability.

Some posters accidentally amplify short seller narratives, undermining their own long positions.

🧠 3. It suggests an emotional—not rational—attachment

Thousands of posts indicate obsession, not analysis.

That level of emotional investment may cloud judgment, especially when someone is unwilling to cut losses or reassess a thesis objectively.

🧮 4. It wastes time better spent elsewhere

Serious investors track fundamentals, review earnings, read patent filings, assess management, or even write to investor relations.

Forum rants may provide catharsis, but not return on time.

You're preaching an unrealistic counsel of perfection.

It's niave to think that any claimant would ever get their whole claim paid through an early legal settlement. There's always a price for quick money.

Lucky to get anytghing after costs in my view and it's not hard to understand how the team at Nanoco would have been so distracted by the litigation that they couldn't look after everything else at the same time to their normal standards.

In summary it's very easy to pontificate all day on on-line forums but not so easy when you're in the driving seat for real.

I could do this all day ...

Regarding Nanoco v Samsung. Are there any comparable patent cases where a small company has taken on a multinational corporation and, starting with little money to pay legal fees, come to a larger out of court settlement?

ChatGPT said:

Yes—there are instances where small entities, sometimes almost penniless, successfully sued global giants and secured significant out‑of‑court patent settlements. Here are some notable examples:

🔹 Rembrandt Wireless vs. Samsung & BlackBerry

Rembrandt, a small patent-assertion entity, sued Samsung over Bluetooth patents and was awarded $15.7 million in court. It similarly reached a settlement with BlackBerry—showing that focused patent claims, even from small players, can yield strong settlements

Wikipedia+15WIRED+15Forbes+15

.

🔹 OPTi vs. Intel, AMD, Apple

OPTi began with minimal staff and sold its semiconductor business, pivoting to licensing and litigation. It reached a $13.5 million out-of-court settlement with Intel (2001), then secured $14.75 million from Nvidia and $32–35 million from AMD. It even sued Apple, resulting in a $21.7 million judgment

Wikipedia

.

🔹 Vringo vs. ZTE

Vringo, with only a few dozen patents, triggered global legal action against ZTE, leading to an $21.5 million settlement—an impressive achievement for a small IP-focused compan

Excuse me Kooba but I hadn't quite finished ....

🧑‍💼 Management Criticism

Forum blasts CEOs Edelman and Tenner as inept, incompetent.

Fact:

Brian Tenner (CEO during settlement) oversaw the IP win; board decisions followed expert advice, weighed litigation risk and financial prudence

Reddit+5Reddit+5London South East+5

London South East

.

Public reporting suggests the team is now focused on rebuilding organic growth and capitalising on IP credibility .

🧩 Summary

The Samsung deal was not a giveaway: non-core patents were sold, key patents stayed with Nanoco under a licence back arrangement, and the company retains full operating rights.

Shareholder returns (around 24 p/share) were in line with disclosed settlement strategy—with ~£20–23 m retained to invest in growth.

Claims about a high‑interest LOAM loan are unsubstantiated; LOAM participated in the tender.

Nanoco remains an operating company: it's fundraising, suing LG, investing in capacity and new tech areas.

Management faced criticism, but choices were defensible based on cautious litigation strategy and medium-term business planning.

🧭 Final Take

Nanoco’s structure post-Samsung is not just a cash shell—it retains core IP, licences, and strategic intent to build its business through technology and litigation. The criticisms about under‑valuation and mismanagement don’t hold up well against disclosed facts. The mounting LG lawsuit suggests the company is still playing offense in protecting and monetising its IP.

This is a good game. I asked Chat GPT to fact chat TwoGood@Dies post and provide an answer in under 500 words.

Here’s a fact‑checked analysis of the forum claims about Nanoco – all within 500 words:

✅ Samsung Settlement & IP Sale

Forum: Describes the settlement as "selling IP for peanuts" and granting Samsung free rein over Nanoco’s core IP.

Fact: In Feb 2023, Samsung agreed to a US$150 million settlement with Nanoco. That broke down into:

A US$65 m fully paid global, perpetual IP licence, and

A US$85 m sale of “non-core” patents – with Nanoco retaining a perpetual licence to use them

Financial Times+13Research Tree+13The Times+13

Proactive Investors+1Proactive Investors+1

Reddit+9Stockopedia+9London South East+9

.

Nanoco did not give Samsung free rein over its core IP; it retained rights and freedom to operate .

💷 Shareholder Returns vs Commercial Investment

Forum: Notes shareholders received only ~24 p or 37 p, implying IP was sold undervalue.

Fact: Nanoco returned ~£30–33 m via tender and buy-back at 24 p per share (~25% premium) .

After costs and returns, Nanoco retained approximately £20–23 m to bolster its business

Mintz+13The Business Desk+13Edison Group+13

.

🔴 Role of LOAM & High‑Rate Loan

Forum claims LOAM’s high‑interest loan and refusal to participate were red flags.

Fact: I found no credible independent confirmation of a high-interest loan by LOAM or its refusal to join a placing. LOAM (now Lombard Odier) did participate in the tender at 24 p .

🧠 Core Business Status & Future Litigation

Forum: Suggests Nanoco is "not even a business,” having sold off its assets, and future litigation (e.g. LG) limited by Samsung precedent.

Fact: Nanoco is actively pursuing new IP monetisation:

Sued LG in Texas (Apr 2025) over cadmium‑free quantum dot

"Idiots are the ones who cant get facts right."

---------

See, one of my many definitions of an idiot is someone who spends their whole life talking down their own investements because they don't have any respect in the real world.

The company has returned more than all the capital it's raised to shareholders and is in profit over its whole lifetime.

No one has any idea what it will be worth in the future. You make fools of yourselves even trying to guess based on what you can find on Google but Samsung paid $130m for licences to only a few of the patents.

And none of you would have the first idea of what to do if you were in charge. Idiots.

"The key issue here is Nanoco has had very poor leadership since it's inception ..... etc"

Why do you write this idiotic dribble? It must take up hours of your time. For some perspective go and look up how many university start ups in technology even get off the ground, let alone last twenty years and regsiter hundreds of patents, some of which have proven value

Kooba

You are a worthless points-scorer who obvioulsy has nothing better to do than spend thgeir whole time arguing against better knowledge on the internet.

Go see a shrink and sort your anger issues. Please.

Yeah, if only they'd hire you guys. Think where Nanoco would be now.

Anyone see a problem?

Did you write that twaddle all by yourself?

Bet you can't find any other patent cases settled out of court where any small company who started with no money of their own to fund their action won nearly as much as did Nanoco. Tenner worked a miracle.

20p 1 july 2024.

Split hairs why don't you? All you want to do is argue. It's pathetic.

"This isn't a pump and dump, this is merely a recovery to the previous trading range at the start of the year. "

-----------

Thank you for a sensible comment at last. We know Nanoco is thinly traded and the share price reacts quickly to stimuli. It's reverting to the mean after a period of no news and constant whinging here. The 52 week high is still 20p and there has been no bad news since that was recorded.

"Now we know getting revenue is hard for Nanoco but, and apologies for the speculation Terror, I would like to think that there's not enough new material in there for his six thousand followers (many of whom it seems are struggling to identify where they can even buy the shares) to have driven volume of 5m shares so far over the last 2 days vs an average of 300k for the previous 20."

_______

Okay, but why does any of this imply he's pumping? Couldn't he just be pleased to have found a genuine investment he likes the look of?