Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
WRT the question of employee count, the best I can tell, there are 13 full-time employees counting Steve and Robin.
- Three people on LinkedIn are from the other Quantum Materials in India
- There are five who I don't believe are still employed there
- One is dead
- Two are contractors (maybe)
- Four are students on the West Coast who don't appear to be connected
- Six are or were consultants and advisory people, e.g. Jabbour and Doederer
Objectively, "literally everything... were lies" is literally a false statement.
Dude, QTMM's Squires is 62-63.
Wholly owned subsidiary of what or whom?
Innova cut a deal to pay <$0.02/share for something that was selling for $0.12/share.
Wrong. It is totally shifty and disingenuous to continue to hype "a billion dollar company wants/wanted to buy 51% of them," without stating at a huge discount. It's more like the CEO cut a deal for himself while giving away the company.
If memory serves, at cents on the dollar. Seems shifty to keep omitting that little tidbit.
Define scam.
Over the last decade, the company management provided communications that were intentionally ambiguous. They were ripe to be interpreted however the reader wanted and allowed those who wanted to be taken advantage of to be taken advantage of. Is that a scam?
Over the last decade, some shareholders, maybe with private placement shares and NDA's, had conversations with company management that made them feel like they knew things and gave them enough confidence to promote the stock. Is that a scam?
Over the last decade, shares of the company have been played, pumped and dumped, and been subject to the whims of pennyland. Is that a scam?
LOL, what percentage of Solterra's debt is due him for promoting the company?
Are you allowed to wear a toupee in jail?
Damn. It's a shame Steve couldn't have found a way to sue a display manufacturer for a $1B.
BTW, I don't remember seeing any financials for Solterra in QMC's filings. Who knew they were piling up debt? LOL, who knew they could? Hmm, maybe Robin and Steve took second salaries from their stealthy wholly owned subsidiary.
Jason Flores, Quality Manager (life sciences background)
BTW, it's kind of funny to see Andrew Robinson's name pop up in this patent.
The reason this falls into the category of hype is because we have no idea when the facility will be complete and have little knowledge about QD solar (technology, viability, lifespan, etc.). Nevermind QMC having invested almost zero in the technology compared to real solar research entities.
If you are going to hype something try a product where QMC has actually received a patent in this decade, such as this. (FWIW, I am not promoting the idea that this patent will leading to short term sales.)
Obviously, you have a right to an opinion regarding your strawman. Based on my research, my opinion is that the odds of them ALL being taken away are quite low. Regardless, the appeal of the PTAB is irrelevant to the substance and accuracy of my two posts.
Here are the transcript from the hearing and the final decision. For those interested-
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2021-00186%2F46
"III. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that any challenged claim is unpatentable
based on any challenge stated in the Petition."
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2021-00186%2F47
And FWIW...
It was a strawman the first time it was brought up and it is a strawman response this time as well. There was never a doubt that Samsung would appeal the PTAB and there is no doubt they will appeal the infringement case if it goes to trial and they lose. But that has nothing to do with:
It appears to be a pretty good time to own/buy shares in a QD company with validated intellectual property.
Can't know for sure that the data is up to date but here are what the full-time, contract, and outside adviser groups look like:
Full-time -
Squires, Squires, Nicolaou, Kowlgi, Cona, Trzcinski, Ivy, Ferguson, Patel, Ando, Hand, Velasco, Phillips, Gamez,
Contract -
Araiza, Dominic C., Hardin, Vitalari
Outside Directors -
Doderer, Jabbour
Advisors -
Miller, Kleinschnitz, Anandan, Young
That's somewhat good news. At least he won't join the list of vendors who have come after QMC for non-payment.
Actually, up 87%.
Go ahead and read my stuff again. The original note was talking about placing a bet on what happens. It was positive outcome and it's up over 40%. I didn't propose anything longer term than that.
Regardless, in the original court case, Samsung didn't deny infringing, they disputed the validity of patents. Of course they could change their argument. But half of what was on the table is now off. And 47 of 47 is pretty damning .
The USPTO/PTAB decisions are in. A complete 5 of 5, 47 of 47 victory. Congratulations to those who rolled the dice.
11579050 Nanoco Technologies Ltd. Final Decision 05-16-2022
11852748 Nanoco Technologies Ltd. Final Decision 05-16-2022
If you can trade on the LSE--> NANO
In the U.S., NNOCF on OTCMarkets. (These are not actually Nanoco shares. Best I can tell, they are a type of tracking stock.)
For what it is worth, in the conflict between Samsung and Nanoco, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (at the USPTO) is expected to rule on the validity of Nanoco's patents by the end of next week. Based on the transcripts and company statements, it is believed that the ruling will be (mostly) favorable to Nanoco. While lots of things can happen in infringement cases, and they can go on for a long time, a victory next week is likely to be seen favorably in the market and provide a boost to the stock price. Not a 10X multiplier as some project for the court case but enough of a gain that a gambler might be tempted to place a bet or two.
Then again, the price may already reflect that optimism.
Obviously, this needs repeating:
Yadava's quote is not reporting from a press conference. It is a manufactured quote from a QMC press release which technically is a QMC statement put out by Clay Chase.
LOL, a quote from the Nov 2018 press release? Time has passed. It carries zero weight today.
And with respect to words, a "quantum dot manufacturing facility" is not a QD solar cell manufacturing facility.
Dude, I don't need proof to an argument I am not making. This isn't a "they are going to" vs. "they are not going to" debate. I'm doing what I typically do and pointing out the flaws in your logic.
Calling reading comprehension "word games" helps explain why some have consistently understood the realities around here and others have not.
No one said anything about timing. That's the point. It's not measurable. It's not on the clock. It's cheap talk. The time element is a critical variable when asking someone to discuss plans or even accomplishments. Omitting it tells us a lot. That's why hyping the dream has no value and is just noise.
As usual, a lot of work is going into making words mean more (and less) than they actually do.
Where in that email does Balchin confirm a QD solar cell manufacturing facility will be built any time soon.
Once again, "intention" is the Get Out Of Jail Free card.
There is an inherent lack of seriousness when desperation causes one to compare the construction of the tallest buildings in the world (at the time of their completion) to a relatively small commercial building. And that ignores the fact that folks don't typically build manufacturing facilities for products that do not exist, e.g., QD solar cells. How long did it take Texas State to put up a Star Park building?
When you subtract Robin, the contractors, advisors, ex-employees still linked like Doderer, and misconnections, it is even smaller. That gets the number down to 15 or 16 fulltime employees.
LOL, it's pretty disingenuous to edit your post 8 times and then act like the response wasn't to the original language.
Regardless, any revenue for anything doesn't eliminate the >0 evidence provided for the original goal post-
"How much evidence has been given that the QMC HealthID technology is not included in the Innova app that is offered with every Innova Rapid test sold?"
Did you forget to highlight where they disclose actual revenue?
LOL, they "completed development" many times over the years. Without dollars, it's meaningless BS. And the omission is the >0 evidence you requested.