[ADVERT]
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Nanoco Group Plc LSE:NANO London Ordinary Share GB00B01JLR99 ORD 10P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -0.15 -0.74% 20.20 19.80 20.60 20.00 19.80 20.00 240,359 16:35:12
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Technology Hardware & Equipment 3.9 -6.0 -1.8 - 62

Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

Showing 24001 to 24023 of 24200 messages
Chat Pages: 968  967  966  965  964  963  962  961  960  959  958  957  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
27/6/2021
20:28
Up mdm27 Jun '21 - 17:25 - 23600 of 23605 0 0 0 A.Fewbob, I also had a substantial number of shares in Oxus. The "court" even "miss-interpreted" a payment relating to another mine to enable them to justify their decision. Daylight robbery as you say. ///// Hi Iomdm, Yes, the whole thing stunk. Wasn’t some US senator also somehow involved?? I’ve forgotten the details but I’m seem to remember that dirty politicians were somehow indirectly involved.
a.fewbob
27/6/2021
20:19
Nigwit, last word on the subject. I, and I suspect many other investors were in for many, many years before the mine was effectively seized once gold in quantity was confirmed. The ex ruler's daughter was eventually put under house arrest after a number of years apparently helping herself to the nation's businesses. I have until now tended to overlook you rudeness thinking you may have some knowledge on the subject you comment on. I must say you have just proved to me that you do seem to be the character others suggest.
iomdm
27/6/2021
20:18
If you’re going to keep posting nonsense anecdotes and conspiracies I’m going to keep embarrassing you. Go run a few businesses and learn how they really work before accusing everyone else of being criminals.
nigwit
27/6/2021
18:53
Can I please ask we stop this to and fro and just post things relating to nanoco. I don't want it to turn into the boohoo forum
thags
27/6/2021
18:26
I find it more plausible that you both made bad investments because you didn’t know what you were doing, didn’t understand the legal process and didn’t understand the risks and then tried to defer the blame for your own carelessness when it didn’t work out as you wanted.
nigwit
27/6/2021
17:25
A.Fewbob, I also had a substantial number of shares in Oxus. The "court" even "miss-interpreted" a payment relating to another mine to enable them to justify their decision. Daylight robbery as you say.
iomdm
27/6/2021
17:20
I had shares ins uk listed with a mine being developed in Kazakhstan. The Kazak government took the whole thing over on some frivolous charges. It went to international arbitration and even though all share holders were convinced it was open and shut, we got nothing. The mine is now a huge producing gold mine.
a.fewbob
27/6/2021
13:46
Yes. I've seen the Hurricane Energy threads. There they believe all their oil was stolen by James Bond who's been turned by torture and offers of great wealth to become a Chinese stooge. Or something like that. This a routine patent case of which there are thousands every year. The judge won't be swayed by politics. Apart from the fact that he is probably a highly principled individual, if he were to be corrupted or conflicted it would be spotted, his decision would be successfully appealed and he would be disbarred. So idiot right back at you!
nigwit
27/6/2021
12:16
Where you have Money and interests of sovereign nations involved, justice is well and truly trampled over. If you believe otherwise then you are an idiot.
a.fewbob
27/6/2021
12:13
NigWit22 Jun '21 - 14:09 - 23593 of 23595 0 1 1 Oh no! The goggle-eyed conspiracy theorists have arrived. We can only hope they’re not vaccine refuseniks and they’ve got on their Bluetooth devices turned on so Bill Gates can deactivate them for us. //////// What? Are you saying the above mentioned are honest???
a.fewbob
27/6/2021
10:41
Agreed that seems to be the case. S OR BUST for Samsung at PTAB
bagpuss67
26/6/2021
20:12
There's been a joint application to stay the court proceedings pending the outcome of the PTAB process. There's discussion on the other board about the possible reasons for Nanoco's apparent change of position on this. FWIW I wonder if the stay is the outcome of the mediation. It seems to me that the mediating judge could have suggested to Samsung that their case relies only on patent validity and therefore they should concede the court case. Instead the sides have compromised on a stay, which will save costs and court time, at least for now. It's unusual but possible for the judge to deny a joint application. I don't think the stay will delay things much since the court case wasn't on the critical path but the PTAB process was. Perhaps it has to go back to court for the judge to rule on quantum afterwards but I don't know. Perhaps they'll be an announcement but the news is already in the court dockets and hasn't had much effect on the market, which I still don't think is paying much attention to the case anyway.
nigwit
22/6/2021
14:09
Oh no! The goggle-eyed conspiracy theorists have arrived. We can only hope they’re not vaccine refuseniks and they’ve got on their Bluetooth devices turned on so Bill Gates can deactivate them for us.
nigwit
20/6/2021
11:47
I had another company that was involved in arbitration after having its assets (gold mine) confiscated by the sovereign government. The politics involved ensured we lost the case although it appeared we were well and truly robbed. The US is corrupt and frequently uses its might to trample over the law. Just look at how dirty the Clintons, Bushes and now Bidens are! Vile bunch of thieves.
a.fewbob
20/6/2021
09:35
Like all theses cases I don't feel there is a clear cut answer..But the recent Acorn Inc and Solas cases point to a guilty verdict but a lesser award of 'unwillfull' infringement being the decision that the jury reach. The judge then sets the award and this is the irony of the situation..Samsung as guilty as sin, a repetitive IP thief from smaller companies, yet gets found guilty of the lesser crime compared to woeful infringement and its 3 times multiplier award because effectively what Texas juror would want a multi hundred million dollar legal award and bad publicity against a firm thats investing, creating jobs, and paying taxes in their own back yard..its ironic that Nanoco may end up winning but not anywhere near what seems fair and reasonable for the damage caused to the firms commercial growth prospects
spastics attack
20/6/2021
09:22
SA. Interesting points but is there not a strong argument that Samsung could not claim it was ‘unwillfulR17; use if there is clear evidence nano shared the patented tech with them ? Your point about a jury potentially being lenient due to the investment in Texas is valid but surely the jury only determine guilty or not guilty and it is then for the Judge to determine the value of the award??
millwallfan
20/6/2021
08:53
My key concern here or worry is not that Nanoco will win its legal action or receive an out of court settlement with Samsung but that the amount will be only a small fraction circa 10% of the total lost licence fee incomes over the last 5 years. The reason being two fold..Firstly Samsung have announced a $10 billion semi conductor investment in Austen Texas to address US concerns over foreign competition and by doing so will garner much local political support. Afterall Samsung is now investing, creating high tech jobs, and paying taxes in Texas, which fosters local support. Secondly the recent cases and legal infringement awards Acorn Inc $25m and Solas $69m point to much lower settlements as Texas jurors decide that although Samsung was guilty they convey the lesser charge of unwillfull guilt..meaning a much lower legal award. As such I have recalculated an eventual award to c.$75m for a 'unwillfull' guilty verdict. The key now would be the size and extent of any licence fee arrangement with Samsung. I suspect closer to $5 rather than $15 per unit as hyped by ME. Still this would equate to £40m per year in revenues for Nanoco based on Samsung shipping 10m tv units. This may account as to why the share price has stalled at c.25p reflecting a much lower settlement and general uncertainty about the legal outcome despite the recent Marksman succesful outcome. However having said that the legal award would secure Nanoco's cash runway and we may be closer to a STM deal coupled with a Samsung licence fee deal meaning the future of Nanoco as a global leader in the CFQD market is more secure. I expect the share price to rise to c.120p this time next year as Samsung legal case closes and STM contract begins to hopefully bear fruit. We may even see a take over bid offer if CFQD technology starts to create global media interest and industry hype as all things related to nano technology takes off leading to a surge in corporate take over and investment activity in this sector. DYOR!
spastics attack
11/6/2021
18:52
Very quiet here but at least we holding above 25. I’m seeing quite a lot of ‘docketbird217; notifications of document filing in recent days so at least it shows things are moving forward,albeit slowly.
millwallfan
06/6/2021
00:25
Well, thanks people for your time and analysis, most interesting. Just have to keep fingers crossed for the moment,then.
woolybanana
05/6/2021
19:27
Have Samsung played a blinder? They have basically stoped Nanoco in there tracks preventing them from selling to the competition. They may end up not having to pay anything, By the time they are forced to cough up, they will have taken the entire market, ///// I know very little about these things but just wondering what others thought.. I’m very tempted to average down with a few grand?? I know some of you are very knowledgeable about the industry and Nanocos position. To me they seem like an incredible punt with better than 50/50 Odds..
a.fewbob
05/6/2021
18:55
Thanks SA. Puts my summary to shame 😂 Let’s settle for $1 billion = $3.3 per share. $1 (70p) special dividend as return of faith to long suffering holders and rest for growing the business providing both cap growth and sustainable dividends. That will do for me
millwallfan
05/6/2021
08:53
The typical financial damages awarded in US courts is based on the expected lost licence fees. In Feb 2019, for the USA market alone at $15 per tv, 14m units sold over the prior 5 years since CFQD tvs were launched equates to $210m. USA sales represent 33% of the market. Samsung sales in USA since then equate to circa 3m a year, last year total global units sold 8m as reported. Hence by October court hearing units sold and claim made c.24m units or c.$345m Damages typical are at three fold lost revenues plus legal costs awarded ergo.$1 billion. That's assuming a win, non basis for appeal, and that Samsung goes to court...which I am willing to wager they settle the week before hearing as they did just that with the recent legal case with Solas. Samsung's legal defence to date appears very weak. For example they have not denied using Nanoco technology. They are challenging the basis of the IP lodged but their claim appears very weak. Extend a USA global win and global units sold to Oct 21 c.66m units or c.$990m in lost licence fees from Samsung.. If Nanoco then extended litigation to other jurisdictions using the USA IP win where the global IP is lodged e.g. Germany could impose both fines and immediate injunction banning Samsung selling products that infringe Nanoco's IP. A double whammy of both fines and injunction banning order effectively stripping retailers shelfs of Samsung tvs using Nanoco tech. Given the next generation of Samsung CFQD tv are due to launch in H2 22 this would provide much negative display media publicity and tie Samsung up in lengthy and complex litigation in many markets just when its poised to ramp up production at their new $10 billion QD factory. Overall as a comparison the global QD market is growing at over 25% per annum with new developments in sectors such as sensing, display, health, horticulture. This is definitely a high growth global market to be in. This is not spin as evidenced based on the myriad of independent research and market bodies. I expect to see QD as a term becoming more main stream in variety of consumer products as the use of QD's goes global and becomes widely acknowledged. This will then ramp up pressure for non toxic cadmium free QD's which Nanoco specialises in. We may even see Samsung make a bid for Nanoco if it sees value in the IP portfolio and the experience and research knowledge of Nanoco itself coupled with the global market growth expected. Good Luck Everyone.
spastics attack
04/6/2021
20:40
Wooly. AFAIUI and from previous posts there are potentially two parts to the calculation the judge might use. Let’s assume it is a 100% win - i.e. Samsung are found guilty of infringing all patents. Firstly it is known fairly accurately how many tv,s samsung have sold using our technology. An expert can assess an ‘added value’ figure which would have been part of the selling price - perhaps a few $$ per unit. As such a ‘calculable217; historical figure of how much Samsung have benefitted. Secondly is the possibility of the judge awarding a ‘one off’ financial sum as ‘damages’; for the ‘theft’ itself. This is much more difficult to ‘guess’ but I’m sure our legal team will make a strong case for the ‘reputational’ loss incurred over the past several years had our patents been recognised worldwide as the market leader in CF dots and the potential contracts that could have derived. I am by no means expert in any of the above and would welcome others views. Also of course there could be a ‘partial win’ reducing the settlement or alternatively (we hope) Samsung’s lawyers really pee the judge off with spurious issues and delay tactics which expert advisors dismiss. All in all - how long is a piece of string 😂
millwallfan
Chat Pages: 968  967  966  965  964  963  962  961  960  959  958  957  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
NANO
Nanoco
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20210917 23:28:01