Monday, February 03, 2025 1:23:09 PM
In other words, you couldn’t quote any provision regarding royalties because it isn’t NOT required despite your repeated claims to the contrary. You keep repeating that lie even though you know it isn’t true.
Wishful thinking for royalties needs to be considered under two approaches: Apple and everyone else.
APPLE (CE devices): the exclusive license (in the field of CE devices) of LQMT IP under the MTA places Apple outside of the scope of the EONTEC/LQMT cross licensing agreement. When/if Yihao manufacturers BMG components used in CE devices for Apple, such manufacturing will be done under a sublicense from Apple rather than under the EONTEC/LQMT cross licensing agreement. (This is absolutely true because EONTEC/LQMT cross licensing agreement excludes cross licensing of technology in the field of CE devices because Apple has the exclusive right to LQMTs technology in that field under the MTA.) Consequently, territorial exclusivity provisions of the EONTEC/LQMT cross licensing agreement do not apply, and there is no reason to expect royalties other than wishful thinking.
EVERYONE ELSE (including non CE devices for Apple): here the wishful thinking for royalties is stronger but is not contractually required. The EONTEC/LQMT cross licensing agreement does not provide any guarantees of royalties. Rather it establishes exclusive territories, but fails to establish enforcement mechanisms. To enforce the exclusivity provisions, our trusted CEO (and Li lackey) TC would need to sue Eontec. It is doubtful that Li would agree to that. LQMT would need to sue Eontec because the party (company XXX) importing the BMG components isn’t a party to the LQMT/EONTEC cross licensing agreement. (You can’t enforce a contract against someone who isn’t a party to the contract.)
Besides, with Li sitting on both sides of the negotiating table, there are many ways (other than paying a royalty) for the exclusivity provisions to be satisfied, altered or ignored. For example, Yihao(Li) tells Eontec(Li), who tells LQMT(Li/TC), “we didn’t know company XXX was going to export into the US. It won’t happen again.” In the interest of maintaining a good relationship, LQMT(Li/TC) agree to that explanation and no royalty is received. Another example, Eontec(Li) and LQMT(Li/TC) renegotiate the Cross Licensing Agreement and eliminate the exclusive territories in exchange for a one time payment of $1 or $1,000 or $1,000,000 or any amount that Li decides upon.
There is a hope for royalties, but it is not guaranteed. Statements insisting that royalties are a sure thing are false.
Wishful thinking for royalties needs to be considered under two approaches: Apple and everyone else.
APPLE (CE devices): the exclusive license (in the field of CE devices) of LQMT IP under the MTA places Apple outside of the scope of the EONTEC/LQMT cross licensing agreement. When/if Yihao manufacturers BMG components used in CE devices for Apple, such manufacturing will be done under a sublicense from Apple rather than under the EONTEC/LQMT cross licensing agreement. (This is absolutely true because EONTEC/LQMT cross licensing agreement excludes cross licensing of technology in the field of CE devices because Apple has the exclusive right to LQMTs technology in that field under the MTA.) Consequently, territorial exclusivity provisions of the EONTEC/LQMT cross licensing agreement do not apply, and there is no reason to expect royalties other than wishful thinking.
EVERYONE ELSE (including non CE devices for Apple): here the wishful thinking for royalties is stronger but is not contractually required. The EONTEC/LQMT cross licensing agreement does not provide any guarantees of royalties. Rather it establishes exclusive territories, but fails to establish enforcement mechanisms. To enforce the exclusivity provisions, our trusted CEO (and Li lackey) TC would need to sue Eontec. It is doubtful that Li would agree to that. LQMT would need to sue Eontec because the party (company XXX) importing the BMG components isn’t a party to the LQMT/EONTEC cross licensing agreement. (You can’t enforce a contract against someone who isn’t a party to the contract.)
Besides, with Li sitting on both sides of the negotiating table, there are many ways (other than paying a royalty) for the exclusivity provisions to be satisfied, altered or ignored. For example, Yihao(Li) tells Eontec(Li), who tells LQMT(Li/TC), “we didn’t know company XXX was going to export into the US. It won’t happen again.” In the interest of maintaining a good relationship, LQMT(Li/TC) agree to that explanation and no royalty is received. Another example, Eontec(Li) and LQMT(Li/TC) renegotiate the Cross Licensing Agreement and eliminate the exclusive territories in exchange for a one time payment of $1 or $1,000 or $1,000,000 or any amount that Li decides upon.
There is a hope for royalties, but it is not guaranteed. Statements insisting that royalties are a sure thing are false.
Rally around LQMT. The serious investors shall be blessed and will hear the word of Li being directly communicated, almost miraculously, to them. Amen.
Recent LQMT News
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 05/08/2026 08:37:19 PM
- Liquidmetal Technologies Inc. to Present at the LD Micro Main Event XIX • Newsfile • 10/06/2025 11:30:00 AM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 08/13/2025 08:00:57 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 07/10/2025 08:02:21 PM
