Some answers to some questions:
If Apple were to use Liquidmetal for car parts (which I doubt), would they have to pay royalties to LQMT, since this would not be CE?
In my opinion it would depend upon whether or not Apple used its on formulation of bulk metallic glass and its own process methodology which did not infringe upon any of the shared IP via CIP.
Apple does not share its glory, but everyone knew that Gorilla Glass was used on the iPhone. Corning insisted upon use of Corning Trade dress in their contract with Apple, LQMT was not clever or too timid enough to enforce LQMT's trade dress
Even if they obtained material for which the LQMT patent had expired from another source, which they probably would not name, wouldn't this information eventually become public, and if it did, would it attract attention to LQMT?
Personally, I am convinced that the current price per share is reflective of both the ordering of a new machine and having generated a line of credit for sufficent working capital to produce the first contract and/or another which Hauck believes may be coming forward in the second half.
In my opinion Apple can make their own formulation(s) in house of that which Materion is offering or their own unique formulation. If it varies from Liquidmetal, then, it could be a sticky issue and I would bet on Apple over LQMT. Indeed, if they make a part, say, under a process of Glassimetal (Walnut, CA) not infringing on LQMT's tech or Jan Schroers (blow-molding, etc.) it might be difficult to state that the parts made by Apple, in this case, would be the same or even similar to parts made by LQMT on an Engel machine. In fact, it could be a real stretch and could damage LQMT's credibility.
Finally, could Apple prevent Samsung from using the original Vitreloy, whose patent has expired, from another source? Could Samsung buy it from Materion? That's the only possible justification I can see for all the speculation about amorphous alloy in the S6.
In my opinion I think it highly unlikely that Samsung would want to test Apple, in any account, by utilizing Liquidmetal, even though, they were the first cell phone manufacturer to successfully, albeit short-livedly, employ liquidmetal in a battery cover back plate on a cellphone. The key to skirting around LQMT and Apple would be to develop a manufacturing process which did not infringe upon the two's IP. To this end, I think Samsung would be years late in doing so
