Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[Pollux]

I respect your work/efforts


But I still don't see a clear, direct answer - for instance:

Out of those 3 alloys, does any of them trigger the cross license agreement between Eon and LQMT in order to the shared by the two companies?

While not patented, the chemical composition/ specifications is shared under the spirit of the Parallel License Agreement.

"Spirit"? Very non-committal word. Basically saying, we can sort of get around any agreement with 106c, is the way it reads; specifically, since it is not patented and could have been created before the PLA.


Can I assume LM105 “WILL NOT” trigger cross license agreement for LQMT production use?

We have previously disclosed our co-development of alloys with Eon under the license agreement. Lowering the cost and expanding the production platforms under which LM105 can be used would fall under these efforts.

Now that 105s has been removed from design guide 4.4. Can I assume 106c “WILL NOT” trigger cross license agreement for LQMT production use also?

We have previously disclosed our co-development of alloys with Eon under the license agreement. Lowering the cost and expanding the production platforms under which 105s (to the extent utilized) and 106c can be used would fall under these efforts.

If yes and Eon has plan to use 106c for their production use. Can I assume 106c “WILL” trigger cross license agreement for EON production use then?

We have previously disclosed our co-development of alloys with Eon under the license agreement. Lowering the cost and expanding the production platforms under which 105s (to the extent utilized) and 106c can be used would fall under these efforts.

All of the above are called a copy/paste answer in order to give an answer that has you running to the agreement to extrapolate it for yourself.

The fact in all of the answers is that it is NOT distinguished in any specifics on what LM106c means for LQMT. It simply sidesteps a direct answer at all. Good information for sure, job well done.

But, if you notice how the response discusses the fact that the material is "not protected by patents" and never discusses if the recipe that is used/promoted of 106c is actually a preexisting recipe; whereby, the "spirit" of the agreement would allow for use of LM106c, if created before the PLA, to be used without subject to PLA. This is the way I understand it from my risk perspective.