Is not Apple invested $3 billion in display technology, just few years back? It was reported that Sharp, LG and other got these grant. Apple can get these patents and pass it to one of them. Another way is that Apple had vision and might not have liked Novaled technology and was expecting something more special?
That is interesting that the leak came from Chiel, which has no good reason to leak it. I suppose the news could keep other bidders at bay, especially if they think the rumored price is already too high. If the deal goes through, we may never know how much Samsung really paid, but I suspect the amount could be less than the $200 mln.
Peter: That makes a good deal of sense. Now the story becomes much more interesting from a strategic sense -- the use of M&A as a competitive weapon. For example, did Doosan really want to buy the company at that cost, or did it strategically make a high bid, knowing that Samsung would have to respond with a bid of its own? And when Samsung did offer more, Doosan bid again. Then when Samsung stopped outbidding it, Doosan dropped out because it didn't really want Novaled at that price.
Now the question is: Will Samsung follow through to avoid a repeat? Or will it also drop out?
The rumor from an unidentified Novaled exec could have been a ploy to attract other bids and encourage Samsung to complete the deal. Otherwise, why leak it?
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.