With reference to clarifying post#5010...
*reference quote;
"the license we have for the U of A patent that will likely preclude any other quantum dot technologies from using printing as their production process which is severely limiting factor. How do they think LG is planning to manufacture qdot displays?"
I recently sent-out a few probes , inquiring into the exact meaning of some of that (tantalizing) verbiage & what has transpired on these topics since that time. I received a clarified response from a party in-the-know (who chooses to remain anonymous) , stating that the LG reference wasn't meant to be specific or 'literal'.
It appears that , despite my trying to play devil's advocate in the interpretation of that text , it was meant to point-out the exclusive rights & IP of QMC's 'mass-producible QD-tech by means of Dr.J's printing-tech'...and the dependence (on QMC licensing or participation) any manufacturer might face if they choose to produce products dependant on this tech...rather than any specific contracts or affiliations with LG.
Sorry to disappoint...I honestly tried not to raise any undue hopes on this but (in my meager defense) sometimes the written-word , as an exact or definitive means of communication , isn't quite all it's cracked-up to be. Still, the original (now-clarified & much-appreciated) response has a lot of potential significance , considering all the big-players contemplating using Dr.J-type QD/PE.
btw; I'll be glad to forward Dr.Bob's original e-mail on this to other co-mods for validation if requested.
