Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[PatentGuy1]

What is the purpose of Annex 6 existence within the MTA then

The MTA is a complicated licensing deal involving four different legal entities (Apple, LQMT, Liquidmetal Coatings, and CIP). Rather than have one massive agreement, the MTA is broken apart into multiple smaller agreements. In Annex 3, LMC assigns its IP to LQMT. In Annex 4, LQMT assigns its IP (which now includes LMC's assigned IP) to CIP. (Look at schedule 1 of Annex 4 to see all of the trademarks assigned to CIP.) Annex 6 provides the terms of Apple's license from CIP. Annex 7 provides the terms of LQMT's license from CIP. Annex 8 provides the terms of LMC's license from CIP. By doing it this way, each Annex is a small separate agreement between only two parties. Each Annex provides the terms (e.g., rights granted and restrictions) agreed to between the parties.

The purpose of Annex 6 is to state the terms of the license granted to Apple. For example, section 2.1 provides that Apple's license to LMT Technology (i.e., "Intellectual Property" and "Intellectual Property Rights") in the field of consumer electronics is exclusive, perpetual and already paid. Another term is provided in section 2.5, which limits how Apple can use licensed trademarks - i.e., Apple cannot use it on items that do not contain bulk metallic glass.

I've tried to answer your questions, so will you answer try to answer the following questions:
1) Do you agree that "Intellectual Property" includes LQMT's formulation for LM105? If not, why not?
2) Do you agree that "Intellectual Property Rights" includes LQMT's trademarks? If not, why not?
3) Do you agree that LMT Technology includes "Intellect Property" and "Intellectual Property Rights"? If not, why not?
4) Do you agree that Apple's license to LMT Technology is perpetual and exclusive in the field of consumer electronics? If not, why not?
5) Do you agree that Apple's right to use LM105 in the field of consumer electronics extends past the ROFR? If not, why not?
6) Do you agree that Apple's right to use licensed trademarks on items in the field of CE extends past the ROFR? If not, why not? If you agreed to item 5 and disagreed to item 6, why are "Intellectual Property" and "Intellectual Property Rights" treated differently with respect to extending past the ROFR?
7) Which part of my post 138965 do you disagree with, and why?