Replies to post #126384 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[Watts Watt]

And risk losing Apple's CIP input.

Unfortunately, the Apple requirement for technology transfer into CIP has expired and sometime in 2016. Someone else please provide the exact date, thanks.

As far as BMG's being in use, check out the history of patents

Top BMG Patent Holders from '87 to '03

55 patents – YKK Corp.
43 patents – Honeywell
33 patents – Tsuyoshi Masumoto & Unitika Ltd.
26 patents – Akihisa Inoue
15 patents – Alps Electric Co.
14 patents – Koji Hashimoto
13 patents – California Institute of Technology
13 patents – Nippon Steel Corp.
11 patents – Hitachi Ltd.
11 patents – Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba

The largest revenue maker, big time, has been Hitchi who bought all of Allieds (now defunct) patents

So yes, have to agree with you that BMGS have been in use a very long time.

[PatentGuy1]

Impossible to leak a scientific analysis without it coming back to LQMT nor would anyone publish such a claim if it is not backed up by those who originated the claim.
And again Risk losing Apple or worse getting finned $50 million for revealing 1 Apple secret.

First, all LQMT need do is do the analysis themselves and then leak the results. Virtually every university could easily verify the results using X-Ray diffraction. A relatively ubiquitous and inexpensive test. Some tear down lab would be interested in being the first to report that information.

Second, where are you getting the "fined $50 million for revealing 1 Apple secret"? I cannot find such a penalty in the MTA. The closest that I have found is that the Apple-GTAT agreement included a $50 Million penalty for "leaking future product information." (http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/10/13/apples-supplier-contracts-include-50m-penalty-for-leaking-future-product-info) A tear down of a publicly released product is not revealing trade secrets nor leaking future product information because the product had to be publicly released in order to do the tear down.

From a business relationship point of view, I would recommend against LQMT having their finger prints on any such analysis, but I don't see how it would subject them to a $50 Million fine. Can you provide a link?