Replies to post #131531 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[PatentGuy1]

One last time, Apple has imposed NO restrictions on Eontec’s IP, so anyone can sell them, including LQMT/Li, in ANY field such as CE.

I agree that Apple has imposed NO restrictions on Eontec's IP. I assume the reason Apple has not tried to do that is because Apple has no legal right to Eontec's IP unless the MTA is still in effect. (The MTA defines LMT Technology as including technology licensed to LQMT during the capture period. However, the consensus of this board is that the MTA is no longer in effect. So, we will ignore that possibility for now.)

With regard to "so anyone can sell them, including LQMT/Li, in ANY field such as CE," talk about a non sequitur. The lack of a logical connection between the assertion (Apple has applied no restrictions on Eontec's IP) and the conclusion (so anyone can sell them) is so vast I'm not even going to try to correct it. Anyone else who reads that sentence will understand that it is patently false.

In response to my request that you "show me any post where I asserted that the Eontec-LQMT cross licensing agreement restricted Eontec's usage of Eontec IP," you have clearly failed for two reasons.
1) Rather than refute my actual statement (i.e., "show me any post where I asserted that the Eontec-LQMT cross licensing agreement restricted Eontec's usage of Eontec IP") you have tried to equate that to saying that "LQMT and Eontec are excluded from CE." The two things that are trying to show are not the same things.

2) In my post that you cited (post 131267, http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=135342896), I was asking hiksan on what his belief that "LQMT could sell to CE markets using the Eontec LM formulation" was based on. In particular, I said:

In all seriousness, what is your belief based on? The cross licensing agreement between LQMT and Eontec excluded the field of consumer electronics.

Saying that the cross licensing agreement excluded the field of consumer electronics is:
(a) factually correct as is shown in Appendix C;
(b) not the same thing as saying "the Eontec-LQMT cross licensing agreement restricted Eontec's usage of Eontec IP." Anyone who took the time to read the agreement would understand that it was the licenses granted under the agreement that were restricted from the field of CE. Eontec's IP was not licensed to Eontec by way of the agreement. Therefore, Eontec's usage of Eontec IP is not restricted from the field of consumer electronics.
(c) not the same thing as saying "LQMT and Eontec are excluded from CE," which I never said despite your assertions to the contrary. I have never said that Eontec is restricted from the field of consumer electronics. I have consistently said that Eontec may use Eontec IP without restriction, but Eontec may only use technology licensed from LQMT outside of the field of consumer electronics.

Perhaps you might agree if I started my explanation by saying "For the MILLIONTH time."