Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[PatentGuy1]

CE isolation was purposely drafted to prevent Apple access to Eontec patents.
More importantly, it is the only way to pass the Chinese Government regulation for the 53 millions acquisition.

I am sure you will agree CEO of Eontec "can" have 100% transparency with newest CEO of LQMT.

You seem to be inferring the Eontec's CEO, Lugee Li, and LQMT's CEO, Lugee Li, will, in the future, be able to come to a meeting of the minds and amend the Eontec-LQMT cross licensing agreement to cover CE. While that is possible, that doesn't alter the fact that currently CE is not covered in the cross licensing agreement. Spreading information that is not factually accurate does not benefit members of this board. Just because someone says the same wrong thing for the "millionth" time doesn't make it factually correct. Naturally, there are situations when members come to different conclusions because the facts are not readily available to the public. However, assertions about LQMT being able to use Eontec IP in the field of consumer electronics is not one of those situations.

While I wouldn't be surprised by a future amendment to the Eontec-LQMT cross licensing agreement, that is a future event that cannot be determined in advance. If, as you say, the "CE isolation was purposely drafted to prevent Apple access to Eontec patents[, and] importantly, it is the only way to pass the Chinese Government regulation for the 53 millions acquisition," why do you believe that the Chinese Government regulators will allow it in the future? My point isn't whether the Chinese Government regulators will or will not allow such an amendment in the future, but rather the future is unknowable and treating a future event as a fact for today does not benefit any of us.

IMO, speculating about future events or events where the facts aren't fully known is useful because it may help some people's analysis of LQMT. But such speculation shouldn't be peddled as fact.