Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[PatentGuy1]

LOL. However, if memory serves me correctly, the unattributed quotations were allegedly given prior to the restructuring plan. In which case, there is a good chance that the anonymous source/sources is no longer there.

It would be nice to see if the alleged source would want to clarify some of the statements if he/she is no longer there. I always found it curious that this alleged source answered three separate questions in essentially identical language and that none of the answers are not a direct yes or no.

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.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147941719