Member Info for thomasbrowne

IP MAN thank you very kindly for all that learned knowledge around IP infringements, most generous of you to share all that sir.

GLA

PPE you have a very similar mindset to me sir, when I'm reading your post it's like all the we things/ loose ends, in my mind your rounding them up and filling the gaps in this saga, excellent sir. you've a great sharp take on this situation.

I'll say this again our SP doesn't even now touch the potential of our takeout price. I'm saying this genuinely if we were at 50p I still would be saying the same thing on here. The eventual takeout price has to reflect our IP patents past and future revenue stream , never mind the substantial punitive damages We could get. Samsung would be crazy not to settle this at £5/ £6 hundred million in its own shares.

Come on Samsung , be smart settle right now.

GLA

Nanosy sued quantum dot vision, also I read the legal fees alone were half a million, I think dollars a month for each side, that was breaking quantum QD visions balance sheet, Samsung was it's saviour, though it was reported Samsung had paid $70 million dollars for QD visions, it was also said Samsung paid much more that reported figure of $70m. Why because QD visions had spent $100m of investors money developing its IP.

I'm now expecting a mostly all share offer from Samsung of between £350 to £ 600 million pounds , to include everything lock stock and barrel. Lawsuit dropped, and smiling faces all round. That for me would be a reasonable and fair settlement.

DYOR, and never rely on anyone's financial forcast. GLA

Nanoco have been in discussions with Samsung from around March last year about our patent infringements, they must have know about a imminent infringement lawsuit against them, and as yet have not strenuously denied any wrongdoing whatsoever , normally their lawyer's. Would be prepared for this bad media infringements scenario, and yet all Samsung have put out is " WE ARE REVIEWING THESE PATENTS " they've had over 10 months to review them with there expert patent lawyers, if they don't know by now if they've breached our patents , then our patent lawyers will confirm to Samsung what Samsung already slyly know, that they definitely have knowingly used our patented technology without our consent.

The very fact that they are hiding from even giving a strong media rebuttal to our lawsuit says it all.
Or are they keeping quite as they might be thinking about a substantial offer for nanoco to stop the media and especially the American media circus during nanoco's lawsuit. I hear TRUMP YELLING they are stealing our technologies again. Get punitive damages from them to stop this happening. That's the only time I want to hear trumps mouth opening, LOL.

GLA

Sorry,,,,,,, what nanoco are alleging,,,,,

Troublesome your a character ok, LOL.

If we proceeded on a no win no fee case, that could cost us maybe 25% of our settlements. It's annoying that we could loose a fortune, but it removes the likelihood of any loss to our cash reserves, it's probably called a necessary evil,
If they take the risk then they take the big reward,
Though these patent lawsuit litigation companies would get the very best expertise in to analyze how strong our case is,

It's only after very careful analysis would they take on our lawsuit. These people know there stuff ok.
It's my belief by just looking at what Samsung are alleging in there lawsuit, is that Samsung deliberately and wilfully infringed on or patents, that really is a very serious alligation to make against a multi- billion pound titan of a company, with endless amounts of cash to use to sue anyone.

So nanoco after months of preparation with the top experts and patent lawyers , must feel extremely confident in taking Samsung on in any lawsuit. it really feels like we are on the winning side here.

I'm still astounded that our share price still doesn't reflect the high potential for a takover or a very strong lawsuit.

GLA

ddubya. You can leave the legal bits to one side, if you wish , I will continue to protect my legal position by just two tiny words,
Funny a judge would just ignore or throw out a a lawsuit with just those two we words in any case.
You must of heard about certain things are not admissible in a court of law, hearsay, secretly recorded conversations etc, and without prejudice.
I must be doing something right when my lawyer phones me up and showers me with absolute praise at getting the health trust permanent Secretary in northern Ireland to overturn a government policy , and free 7 of her lawsuits against a healthtrust, she actually said I can't believe what you done thomas, the trust never changes that policy.
And during that whole month I spotted them two we words in legal jargon, without prejudice.

Yes let's get back to our nanoco, this share could eventually make us all very rich indeed, the takeout price could multiply our share price by X 10. that really is possible, before it was a doubling or tripling of our SP, factor in this lawsuit and damages and it could easily be a X10 scenario.
Punitive damages can literally be anything in the usa,

GLA

ddubya you can still be sued with no problems ok, though by inserting them two we words ,,,,,, your written or verbal words can't be admissible in a court of law. That's not my judgment , it the UK EU judiciary that state that.

GLA

Mr BWM I ALSO had that same thought, it was a collaborative development, though here's what changed that thinking , nanoco have included infringements on there older long before collaborative patents, our older patents hold the key to these patent infringements as they were the scaffolding that pulls them all together for the technology to work correctly. It's like saying you own a pair of ladders but you neighbour owns about 20 of the bottom steps of that ladder , you can't use the ladders if you don't have permission to use the first 20 steps. It's hopefully that simple, going by what nanoco have stated this is a very straightforward alligation against samsung, and a judge would probably rule on this injunction quickly enough given the right advice. This really feels like a strong meritorious case to me. And one were a judge & jury will gladly give a substantial punitive settlement to nanoco's share holders.

GLA

PPE your actually putting down in black and white what I'm being suspicious about. Yes every thing your suggesting is what I'm thinking, and more importantly it makes good common sense, Samsung may have sucked up to us only to get the hands on our ip patent scaffolding to our technology, and then slithered away to manufacture of themselves, also nanosy strange concoctions that have nearly no cadmium in them ???? What's that all about, why nearly, when we have none in ours, or is that
There way of getting out of a patent infringement case themselves, or is it so close it still breeches our patents, ??

Your right PPE this all absolutely stinks of dirty tricks , on the face of it , someone is the instigator of our patent infringement and for me without prejudice it's Samsung that fits the bill perfectly, ### "WHY" ## IT HAD THE MOTIVE AND NEEDED OUR CFQD technology, after it stops it , everything else happened, and our technology was out of our control, also Samsung has a consistent history of doing similar things to other suppliers, namely Apple etc.

All my suspicions are without prejudice to Samsung or any other parties.

GLA

Wouldn't it be just great if Apple sank it's teeth into us just to put the boot into Samsungs TV ambitions, our patent hold on Samsung might just make other TV manufacturers poll together to stop Samsung dominating the TV market +.
that's a strong possibility, and if not make them pay big money for us.
Yes it's looking very interesting from were I'm sitting right now.

GLA

Troublesome the American judge & jury will have to run that past our poster ddubya first, LOL.

GLA

83 you hang in here good sir, you will be well able to see the pay back from Samsungs dirty tricks tactics,
The very fact that nanoco claim Samsung have carried out a willful direct infringement, for me that implies a very strong likelihood of large punitive damages against Samsung, considering the American public are on the March against Asian based companies stealing western IP patent technologies. And also comes at the serious detriment of a small uk company who have developed most of this technology over numerous long years of share holders losses. The American judge and jury will hit Samsung really hard should Samsung decide not to settle this case with nanoco on very favourable terms to us.

GLA

PPE your last post is absolutely spot on, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a sharing out of our IP secrets between these CFQD using parties. It's the timing of the use of the CFQD that I find suspicious .

Without prejudice .

GLA

Amerlogue your welcome sir , it only takes them 2 tiny we words to keep you from being sued and possibly losing the roof over your head. I learned that while making very serious accusations against a hospital consultant, who subsequently was made to retire early in disgrace, and he still may face a police charge.

GLA

For those who didn't check it out, When you put without prejudice in your posting Samsung cannot use what you've written or said in a court of law,

That's why lawyers make offers to settle a lawsuit , they will state without prejudice so you can't then go into court and say to the judge and jury that the other side offered me millions to settle my case outside of court, it's not admissible in court , so they must be guilty your honour, when you state that ====== without prejudice===== it can't be used against you in any court of Law, accept one were Donald Trump is the judge.

It's unlikely anyone would be sued on here, but if you don't protect yourself then you definitely are wide open to being sued if you defame another party. You write it then your 100% responsible for your own words.
To many people think ahhh it's only a we ranting forum,
So protect yourself by stating=====without prejudice=====then it isn't admissible in court.

Simple protection.

Everyone please keep a eye out for anyone/ financial Times of otherwise doing the number crunching on our infringement case. Them write-ups can be extremely valuable to us , and can give us a better understanding around our case, because it really is hard to understand our infringement case at the nanoparticle level, only a trained specialist lawyer will understand these infringement cases , also most people believe nanoco would have run this past these lawyers several times before issuing a lawsuit against a goliath company like samsung, also Samsung have a shady history of dirty dealings with its business partners and prominent government officals, as we've all just read about in the previous post.

I do actually believe Samsung took what they needed to carry on without nanoco's IP permission, though for me the jewel in the crown of our lawsuit is that our patents were infringed from our much earlier patents , and say before any collaborative work was done between nanoco and Samsung. That for me is extremely important, as that means we own the scaffolding that connects every patent together, that makes our technology work, and we are presenting this to a judge and jury.
Samsung is in serious trouble if found wilfully infringing on our patents, meaning a punitive damages financial settlement might be part of our judge and jury's verdict.

All the above is without prejudice to Samsung and nanoco.

DYOR, BEFORE BUYIN OR SELLING , GLA

Its definitely looking like Samsung have pulled a fly one on nanoco, they asked for a collaboration to use nanoco's expertise and technologies, nanoco obviously patented this technology , and then Samsung takes what's been invented by nanoco and uses nanoco's patented IP to put with there own quantum dot processing partners, that's why Samsung didn't give us the contract to manufacture quantum dots, because they could get it manufactured by there part family owned private company, and other little sweet deals to keep nanoco out of the picture, Samsung has a lot of clout around the world, and it could easily influence other suppliers not to give us contracts or else, that would keep us out in the cold so as to speak,

So maybe just maybe Samsungs chickens have come home to roost.

On the face of it this seems like a core part of the quantum dot technology, in other words Samsung could not have proceeded with its quantum dot manufacturing without nanoco's say so, this really could be a massive Lawsuit with a potential of hundreds of millions of compensation of damages for nanoco. Dare I say it near a billion dollars or so, if Samsung have used our core quantum dot technology in all the production of TV,s etc, then they will be bricking it, if nanoco can get a restraining order to stop Samsungs production of TV,s and more, then Samsung will be dragged to the negotiating table, and most likely Eat humble pie, with a extremely high takeout out price for nanoco , which includes the amount of estimated damages for loss of royalties.

I'm actually astonished that more investors didn't pile into nanoco to avail of this incredible opportunity to at the very least double there money. I've a fantastic profit already, though I'm staying put until the big money rolls in here, and it will ok.

Nanoco seemingly have 5 patent infringements, to me that sounds like a solid connected quantum dot technology that nanoco have developed, and now it's been infringed on by Samsung. It's time to pay up Samsung.

I state all of the above posting without prejudice to Samsung or nanoco.

DYOR, and don't buy on my say so. GLA

Interesting we video clip from our CEO talking about our CFQD and the runcorn processing facilities. listening to him, it's hard to believe we're up forsale, and considering the huge value in the company. Worth a we look, just t scroll down a bit to find it.
after you read about apples disappointing decision, I wonder would it bring the cost down much for Apple's hi Tec camera if Apple owned nanoco outright. ???

We could have apples shares
Or Samsungs shares
Or even DOW shares that trade on the London stock exchange. They might like a foothold in this market , they also are a huge company.

https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?ShareTicker=0A1S&share=Dow-Ord

Nanoco's CEO clip below .
https://macdailynews.com/2019/06/24/apple-cancels-contract-for-advanced-iphone-camera-sensor-would-have-been-worth-millions-for-british-tech-firm-nanoco/

GLA

Gonebroke excellent find sir, now if anyone has went for a free trial from that post, do they know exactly what the patent infringement alligation was ? To know that would be a indication about the money involved,
Samsung would probably be one of our suitors , and the court action would continue regardless of any bid, that is until
Our new owner was decided.
And yes the case could be worth a lot of money, also I just don't think nanoco would take the case if it doesn't see a clear infringement issue nere,
If we're talking about a lot of money , then yes it's in Samsungs interest to snap us up, and then indirectly reduce the cost of buying nanoco. The Apple case may be a massive case, though in the states there could be a punitive element to our case against samsung, which could be substantial, though that could be 3 / 4 years away from a settlement. Or not
Depending on a estimated payout from Samsung , then Samsung may really need to snap us up, or our new buyer will have huge legal resources to back up a massive legal challenge against samsung.
So Samsung wise up and get your check book out and save God knows how many millions in legal fees and infringement punitive damages here.

Looking forward to the next few weeks,

Again I ask does anyone know what the infringement allegations are ??????

GLA

PPE. a perfect reason why Samsung should buy nanoco, 40p 50p and I’m smiling, a £1+ and I’m euphorically happy,
The next two weeks will be exciting RNS or not,

GLA