InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 225
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/15/2015

Re: lqmtapple post# 80712

Sunday, 01/10/2016 9:21:40 PM

Sunday, January 10, 2016 9:21:40 PM

Post# of 233221

There were parts of the MTA that were omitted for confidentiality reasons. Some of these terms could have been the sub-licensee rights. A sub license agreement does not necessarily extend all rights that the licensee has.



Apple has a license in perpetuity that is also assignable to agents (as per the MTA and as per most well-drafted similar agreements) it uses as long as it is in CE. The basic premise is that if Apple was to have one of their agents in the production stream use LQMT/CIP tech, then not only is Apple paying for research that goes into CIP, but then they are also paying an upcharge for using a vendor that is subject to a LQMT royalty. Is Apple that dumb? Think about it. It's a long-standing contractual provision, but it's basic business common sense. You don't refer someone charging you to have them pay for something, and require them to go to another vendor that you know is going to charge them a royalty so they have to charge you more to pass through the cost. GL.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent LQMT News