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.
I guess no explanation is necessary.
“BELOW IS 100% SPECULATIVE OUTCOME”
So very true, and thank god for all the links to Reddit. If it’s in Reddit, it must be true. No wild speculation there.
Yawn, same story, different day.
I wish I were invested in Eontec rather than LQMT. We know that Eontec will benefit from those contracts, but we have no idea whether LQMT will benefit. Assuming LQMT does benefit, we have no idea how much LQMT will benefit. TC will be negotiating with Eontec, and he will do exactly what Li tells him to do or risk losing his cushy job.
IMO, the miscalculation was having faith in management, and I’m referring back to all of the management.
If I understand correctly, you’re saying that people who believe that the brand LIQUIDMETAL has value now believe that because once it is widely known it will then be valuable. Doesn’t that logic mean that it could be any name/brand right now? If the brand were BESTMETAL, wouldn’t BESTMETAL be valuable once it became widely known?
Also, there are pitfalls for brands that become widely known. I assume you have heard of aspirin. That name can be used by any pain reliever company that produces acetylsalicylic acid (ASA). Bayer lost the trademark to ASPIRIN because aspirin became synonymous with pain reliever. If LIQUIDMETAL becomes synonymous with amorphous metal, then Liquidmetal runs the risk of losing the trademark. Once a mark be one’s generic instead of identifying a source of goods/services the mark can be used by anyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark
“Not even one-hundredth of 1 percent of the world is aware of the benefits and capabilities of this new material …”
I totally agree with you. What I don’t understand is why people think that the Liquidmetal name is so valuable when it isn’t broadly known.
Is it sitting idle or churning out Liquidmetal hinges (for which we see no revenue)?
“10 years ago we did not have access to a BMG manufacturing infrastructure that is today mass manufacturing liquidmetal hinges for HUAWEI the second largest smartphone company in the world.”
And, 10 years ago we weren’t getting revenue from said BMG manufacturing infrastructure.
Oh, wait a minute, we still aren’t getting any revenue.
Yes, you are wrong.
Please try to get your facts straight.
Li wasn’t with LQMT in 2010.
The patents were not sold. Apple got exclusive rights in the field of CE, and everything else remained as it was.
Yeah, it was understated irony.
I’m certain that Apple invested in Liquidmetal solely because our name is not chalky.
I wonder why Apple is working with Glassimetal? Perhaps they like the technology or maybe it is the technology and the management?
And, why did Apple start working with Glassimetal after having invested in Liquidmetal? Perhaps Apple realized that the money isn’t all in the name.
If the name is where the money is, then that would explain why we are $0.9s. I’m sure that a competitor hasn’t figured out that they too could do amorphous metals under a different name. Strange as it seems, glass is a liquid, i.e., it is an amorphous material. I’m surprised that we don’t have a competitor under the name of “glass metal” or “glassmetal” - such a name would convey “amorphous” and “metal” - just like “liquidmetal”.
Oh wait, how about “glassimetal”?
https://www.glassimetal.com
I wonder how much that name is worth?
Thanks, I wonder if Apple agrees with that interpretation?
TWT on who got the better side of that deal.
Wow, that is fantastic news. Care to go further out on that limb and clarify “soon”? Will those royalties be in the next quarterly report, the one after that, and so on and so on, …
Royalties, whales, profitability, etc. have been predicted as coming soon for so long that soon has no meaning anymore.
Hey there,
Have you had a chance the original poster as to the meaning of “Liquidmetal Components” yet? Without knowing that the post is meaningless.
Check the MTA for the definition of CE. CE includes components that are used in CE products.
“Can Apple sell iFold into China if it contains LiquidMetal Components?”
Answer-It depends.
First of all, this question is so poorly phrased that it is hard to know what “Liquidmetal Components” means. Are they:
A) components made by manufacturer (which is neither LQMT nor Eontec) that uses CIP technology?
B) components made by manufacturer (which is neither LQMT nor Eontec) that uses Eontec’s Licensed technology (I.e., Eontec technology licensed to LQMT via the PLA)?
C) components made by manufacturer (which is neither LQMT nor Eontec) and that doesn’t uses CIP technology nor Eontec Licensed technology?
D) components made by LQMT that uses CIP technology?
E) components made by LQMT that uses Eontec licensed technology?
F) components made by Eontec that uses CIP technology?
G) components made by Eontec that uses Eontec licensed technology?
(Do you know which scenario the original poster meant or can you ask? TIA for any clarification.)
It should be pointed out that Apple isn’t a party to the PLA. Apple didn’t get a license to any of Eontec’s licensed technology because, under the PLA, CE was excluded from the license in both directions. LQMT cannot use Eontec’s Licensed technology to make CE components, and therefore, Apple didn’t get a license to the technology through the terms of the MTA. Furthermore, because Apple isn’t a party to the PLA, Apple isn’t bound by the territorial exclusivity terms.
Scenario A: Apple has exclusive rights to CIP technology in the field of CE. Eontec/Li have no grounds for objecting to Apple selling such components in China.
Scenario B: it depends on whether the Eontec technology was patented or was a trade secret that was illegally obtained. If it was not patented nor an illegally obtained trade secret, Eontec/Li have no grounds for objecting to Apple selling such components in China.
Scenario C: Eontec/Li have no grounds for objecting to Apple selling such components in China.
Scenario D: this is an impossibility because LQMT doesn’t have the necessary manufacturing capacity to fulfill dental contracts or guitar pins, let alone components for the world’s largest whale. If such manufacturing capacity existed it would be permissible under the PLA for LQMT to manufacture such components for Apple for the China market.
Scenario E: this is an impossibility (see above). If such manufacturing capacity existed it would be impermissible under the PLA for LQMT to manufacture such components for Apple for the China market.
Scenario F: Under the MTA, Apple has exclusive rights to CIP technology in the field of CE and Apple could grant Eontec any license necessary to manufacture such components for Apple. Unless the manufacturing contract between Apple and Eontec prevented Apple from selling such components into China, Eontec/Li have no grounds for objecting to Apple selling such components in China.
Scenario G: Unless the manufacturing contract between Apple and Eontec prevented Apple from selling such components into China, Eontec/Li have no grounds for objecting to Apple selling such components in China.
I’m shocked, shocked to hear that.
While I seriously doubt that Apple is using Liquidmetal, I don’t think that we can actually say that Apple isn’t using Liquidmetal until someone does a tear down and analysis. If Apple ever uses Liquidmetal, I don’t expect Apple to announce it.
Not according to the market.
Have you read the PLA?
Damn, I was going to issue junk bonds to personally acquire Apple! I guess I won’t now if I might be competing against LQMT.
In all seriousness, why do you say that a domestic manufacturing plant is badly needed? What evidence is there to show: (a) there are potential customers that want BMG component, but only, if they are manufactured domestically; or (b) a domestic plant will meet a need that isn’t/can’t be met by our Chinese CMs?
Apple may be on their radar, but for a buy out, it would be better if LQMT was on Apple’s radar.
Wow!! When you said soon, I didn’t know you meant that quick.
Just to be clear, when you said “after the close today”, does that mean before tomorrow’s opening or before the opening in 6 months from now? Both are after today’s close. I hope it is going to be an extravagant Christmas.
Yes, it could be directly communicated 1:1 to a prospective new customer, but my point was the information may “attract” potential new customers. For example, a potential new customer may not give LQMT the time of day due to LQMT’s track record to date. But if that information were publicly known, that same potential new customer may seek out LQMT. All hypothetical and just an alternative argument for why it might be better to make the information public.
On the other hand, communicating that information may attract new customers.
“There is a territorial separation for profits. LQMT LF (Lake Forest, USA) gets profits on orders that are sold in Europe and North America. We don't see profits on anything sold outside of that territory, even if it uses our patents and know-how.”
We wish there for territorial separation for profits, but that isn’t the way the PLA is written. Currently, there are exclusive territories with Eontec promising not to sell into LQMT’s exclusive territories and vice-versa. However, there is no enforcement mechanism nor penalties. If Eontec sought permission to sell into LQMT’s territories, TC (Li’s handpicked successor/lapdog) would be negotiating for LQMT. That reality is far removed from the wished for territorial separation of profits.
IMO, it looks like those who predicted a crash this week because of the departures announced last week we’re wrong.
Here is to hoping that those who predicted a buyout at $4/share, which will happen “very soon”, are correct.
The silence from LQMT appears to have finally silenced those who are pessimistic/realist and those who are optimistic/forward looking. LOL.
GLTA
“… cash machine that was an elusive concept until a Visionary such as Li was able to accurately put the pieces together in a way that could insure a small company like LQMT would be guaranteed their much deserved rewards …”
Simple logic tells me that the use of past tense (“was an elusive concept”) is inaccurate. The supposed “cash machine” is still elusive and that there isn’t, as of today, a machine that is generating LQMT’s deserved rewards. Perhaps there will be someday, but not today.
Don’t confuse motion for progress nor wishful thinking for logic.
And is that the answer to when does the cash machine start producing cash for LQMT? It seemed like a long list of excuses that failed to answer the question posed.
And when does this cash machine start producing cash for LQMT? Furthermore, don’t confuse wishful thinking for logic.
“…things are moving full speed ahead”
Don’t confuse motion with progress.
If I was betting on the prediction (not by me) that Apple acquired LQMT or your stance, I would definitely bet on you (unless the odds were astronomical).
If we are acquired at, or around, 16 cents/share, I wonder how long before Li and LQMT are sued in a class action suit for breaches of fiduciary duties.
I don’t reject nor accept your argument. IMHO there just isn’t enough information to know with any certainty. TWT and someone assured us the LQMT is going to be acquired by Apple at $4/share “very soon.” So, I’m thinking we will know before Christmas. LOL but hoping I’m wrong.
But don’t forget the argument that Li has 400+ million reasons to make LQMT profitable. That never held much sway with me when Li had so many ways to profit, with or without LQMT.