Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[PatentGuy1]

And i prefer to believe the man who made the cross license deal, professor Li, than believe your interpretation of them

What part of my "interpretation" of the cross licensing agreement do you not believe? Is it:
a) the licenses granted to LQMT are subject to field of use restrictons;
b) the field of use restriction excludes the field of consumer electronic devices; or
c) when you combine "a" and "b" together you get that LQMT cannot use Eontec's IP in the field of consumer electronic devices?

With regard to "a", that is a fact. Read section 2.2 yourself or believe the quote below:

2.2. Patent License Grant to LMT. Upon the terms and conditions set forth herein (including the termination provisions in Article 7 hereof)
and subject to the Field of Use Restrictions ...

With regard to "b", that is a fact also. Read Appendix C yourself or believe the quote below:

APPENDIX C
Field of Use Restrictions
The licenses granted under this Agreement shall be subject to the following exclusions, conditions, restrictions, and limitations:
1. The licenses granted to Eontec and LMT under this Agreement shall exclude the following products and fields of use:
a. Any Consumer Electronic Products ...

With regard to "c", can you provide an explanation of how taken together "a" and "b" don't equal the conclusion that LQMT cannot use Eontec's IP in the field of consumer electronic devices? As a shareholder of LQMT, I'd be happy to reach the opposite conclusion provided that it was based in facts, was logical, and consistent with the cross licensing agreement between LQMT and Eontec. I prefer my conclusions to be based on facts rather than simply wanting it to be so.