Replies to post #138554 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[1punatic]

APPLES NOT GOING TO EVER LET SAMSUNG USE THE NAME LIQUIDMETAL.
EVER

[MakingMine]

The third possibility here is that Apple walks away from the ROFR and also tells LQMT they can't license the name anywhere else either.

Apple could also lock Li into endless court battles, I assume, questioning the legality of all of this
and preventing Li from selling it to another cell phone maker.

[PatentGuy1]

Thanks for the explanation.

However after the ROFR expires, we need to get the CE rights for DC105 from Eontec before we can license DC105 to Samsung. What is Li's motivation for doing that? Why wouldn't Li just license DC105 to Samsung through Eontec instead?

I'm not certain what is going to happen after the ROFR expires, but I don't think the "Liquidmetal" brand is that valuable. What value does the brand name "Liquidmetal" provide to Samsung? It not as if an advertisement using the phrase "made from Liquidmetal" is going to matter to the general public - the general public doesn't know the difference between "Liquidmetal" and a "terminator."

I can't think of any commercial where a manufacturer used the brand name of a component manufacture since the old days of "Intel inside" or "powered by Intel." However, Intel had a powerful well known brand, which in my opinion does not apply to the Liquidmetal brand.