News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Kurt_Banoffee

07/06/19 12:15 PM

#75115 RE: drugmanrx #75113

Not at all. I've been quite clear. You keep missing the single most important point. It's not about buying reactors and not using them. That's just a silly thing to say - and I've certainly not suggested anything like it.

It's about buying reactors and not being able to make a commercially viable product with them. In that case, there are no solar panels, no displays, no SSL, no QD's anything, and no royalties. I'm not saying this is what is going to happen, but it could. The technology has not been demonstrated on a commercial scale. You may think it's unlikely that it will happen, and you'd be in good company. I'm sure Dow thought it was unlikely too when they licensed Nanoco's technology, and Nanoco investors counted their royalties before they were realized too.
icon url

Ecomike

07/06/19 6:07 PM

#75143 RE: drugmanrx #75113

Ouch, sickem DM!!!

Go QTMM?

Got Q-Dots have you?
icon url

TedJ

07/07/19 7:14 PM

#75166 RE: drugmanrx #75113

"With out having a solar panel, QTMM will have recurring revenue from the quantum dots used in further testing of other products using quantum dots.

True or False?"

False, QMC will only get a royalty from Amtronics (the licensee) when Amtronics sells product. If Amtronics makes QDs for use in developing other products, then there is no royalty until the product is fully developed and the actual product sold to a third party.

The royalty is based on Gross Sales.

“Gross Sales” means the gross amount invoiced by the Licensee, or its Affiliates, licensees or sublicensees for the sale of a Licensed Product


Licensed products are QDs, QDSC and QD LEDs.

If Amtronics makes products, there is no royalty until they are actually sold.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315219002055/ex10-1.htm