Member Info for TerrorWit

Disagree all you like. You never won any damages in a patent case.

Nanoco would never have been in a position to appoint a CEO like Shaskov and two top NED's had posters on this page got their way and refused the Samsung settelement offer.

It's taken time but blaming past CEO's who got Nanoco into position against all odds is ignoring the whole story.

If you ask me my alleged poor social skills seem only to extend to my willingness to point out that other posters were wrong in their persistent assertions around the Samsung case and haven't been ready to accept so.

And, for whatever it may matter, I haven't been banned from any forums. However, I've sometimes left in despair at the moronicity and then returned after a nice rest from you all.

So what! Someone, who must be really excercised, dug up an old post from a time early in the case and pasted an excerpt out of context to punish me for being right about the quantum of the Samsung settlement. Anyone who's been here long enough will recall I spent most of the the three years explaining why it would never be more than Nanoco would have earned had they agreed terms with Samsung in 2015.

You really should learn to respect people who know things you don't appreciate their better knowledgde. Nearly everything I see here is bitterness and recrimination caused because you all got carried away with pie in the sky numbers and only wanted to have your biases confirmed.

In my view none of you have any business on the stock market.

"TerrorWit - It's very strange that you reacted in the way you did. You rewrote history, denied making comments you clearly made, then said everyone else was wrong to get their hopes up. It's really odd behaviour that gains you nothing. "

____

This is an example of how precise words are not interpreted correctly and how posters often attach their own prefeered meanings. I wrote to the effect that anyone buying Nanoco would not find it hard to find as much as the company was worth at it's last peak just before the Samsung settlement (about £1 a share now there are fewer shares in issue). This is not the same as predicting that they would pay that much, which is what I've been told I wrote and since rudely pounced upon for saying, even though I didn't.

This is how wires get crossed. It's exactly how posters attached their own meaning to the words Tenner spoke during the last legal case and to what Edison wrote.

You should all learn to listen and understand exactly what is being said before you jump to conclusions, dig yourselves into holes and then spend years arguing, getting combatative and whining becaise you can't dig your ways out again.

-------

NGR (who isn't me) is right.

Listen up Sunshine!

They're going for an injunction because they've now established the validity of the patents meaning their case will be clearer.

Perahaps one day you'll understand what you're on about. Not holding my breath though.

Chin Chin.

All that ranting because I called you out.

This exemplifies exactly what went wrong here. Desperate for reputation you embelished clear annoucements given by the company during the Samsuung case and then blamed them when the outcome didn't match your imagined expecations.

Now by refusing to accept the whole range of potential outcomes in the CDX process you're trying to claim you can predict the future again.

It's said that only a fool refuses to learn from their mistakes.

All I've said is that the type of companies who Nanoco want to sell to have plenty of money. You added the rest.

(I'm not making any predictions of the eventual value but Samsung paid Nanoco $130m already and also paid $70m to acquire QD Vision in 2015 when QDV were still in late stage VC. No-one knows what will shake out so attacking me, or anyone else, on the assumption that you do is moronic and proves my whole pouint about your constant, vain, hollow opining.)

All I have

"the idea that a major would pay through the nose just because they could afford too is very naive of how things work in the real world ..and is no basis to think how this works out. "

-----

Kooba

This is another example if how you insist on imposing your personal view of the "real world" on everyone else and how this board has become dysfunctional as a consequence of your persitant ranting.

No-one said anyone would pay through the nose but you. You said it to create yet another straw man argument because you can't accept that anyone might have more relevant business experience than you and since you can't relate to their points your only optiosn are to bluff and bully.

Go see a shrink.

"So, TerryFWitt why hasn't anyone offered to buy before??"

----------

Unlike you Nanogeddon I don't pretend to know everything, even about the things I really do know a lot about.

That way I'm not so dissapointed when things take longer than I expected.

I'll enlarge on what I said yesterday.

All the interested parties are going to be major globals. We know this because Nanoco have stated they're looking for a new owner who can invest in the future of the technology. They won't sell to small fry.

Businesses like that would not find it difficult to pay hundreds of millions or even billions if they thought they'd benefit long term. Think entities like: Apple, Samsung, Dow, The major Asian Chemical Company, Akzo Nobel, Phillips, BASF, 3M. Anyway, it's a long list.

They won't be looking at today's share price and thinking "how little can we get away with?"

Sky's the limit.

With all these factors, £70m is too cheap but then factor in the cash burn and it's probably about right.

--------

But they're keeping the cash. What's wrong with you? Too much earwax again?

"Anyway water under the bridge .. "

Yet you go on and on and on. Three years of it. All dribble.

Https://www.india.com/viral/samsung-wins-us-appeal-in-apple-patent-case-986752/

It's meaningless pending appeal Kooba. There's a massive difference between getting a judgement and being paid whihc you would know if you'd ever done it.

Getting $130 million out of Samsung inside 3 years was a huge success for Nanoco. Go ask any litigation lawyer.

You only have to look at what's on the market that contains CF QDs or QD sensors. There's almost nothing except Samsung TVs and Nanoco have been paid for those.

Allegations that this would be different if not for Edleman, Tenner or any other individual at Nanoco are misguided and make no sense in the context of a multi trillion dollar world market for electronics.

It was neither poor leadership nor a flaw. It’s just taken a long time for the market to mature.

Wish people would stop over-thinking simple issues.

Now you're re-quoting out of context and cherry picking. I'm not sure why anything I've written today should be as controversial as you obvioulsy find and can only surmise that you don't like it when someone suggests a narrative that doesn't align with your inner need to constantly promote yourself and seek admiration for your stories, which amount to no more than worthless guessing.

It's true that anyone who would want to acquire and develop Nanoco would not find it difficult to raise £200m and that is all I pointed out.

I fail to see why that triggered you.