There definitely exists two different and opposite opinions regarding who and who cannot use any and all amorphous metal IP before during and after the LQMT/Apple agreements. Rather than focusing on the opinions of who can and cannot use any IP that existed before the LQMT/Apple agreements or any new IP amorphous metal formulas. It seems when two opposite opinions exist the focus is lost on each opinion and more on who is rendering an opinion. Thus all facts and opinions for an open discussion become moot and lost.
Number 1. IMO I do not believe no matter what anyone thinks of LQMT, that they are asking or suggesting anyone sell any or all of their shares. And if they did who would? And if any did sell or buy or add shares. It would be at the sole discretion of the buyer or seller. Woe to them if they make a decision based on what anyone posts!!! And if they did buy or sell, based on a posted opinion read somewhere on the www, it would still be their decision, no matter what anyone thinks of it.
If there are opinions expressing how great LQMT is and anyone buys or holds, that’s a decision for each investor to make. And if there are opinions expressing dissatisfaction with LQMT, and if anyone holds or sells, that too is the responsibility for the investor to make
Number 2. As far as CE goes and amorphous metal formulas. IMO, LQMT has the right to use any IP it acquires for use in any area other than CE in perpetuity per the LQMT/Apple agreements and LQMT cannot and is not permitted to circumvent that restricted area of CE in perpetuity by any means other than a waiver from Apple at the request of LQMT.
Other companies not a party to these agreements are able where they have their own patents and do not infringe/violate Apple’s patents and where those patents are enforced are able to manufacture parts as claimed for consumer electronics. But not LQMT, IMO, the right to CE has been forfeited when they sold the CE part of their IP.
Good luck to all in LQMT.
