Replies to post #167369 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[usaskull]

Thanks BBOY

Its not quantity of the post, it’s the quality.

[handsomehank]

Not sure your reference of LMT is relevant to the context of its use. IMHO

[JoTu]

you are absolutely correct.
https://liquidmetal.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/liquidmetal-technologies-reports-third-quarter-2018-results

Management Commentary

Dr. Bruce Bromage, the Company’s Chief Operating Officer, stated that “the third quarter of 2018 showed the Company’s continued execution of our commercialization strategy. Early production orders shipped during the quarter for Amorphous Metal Molding (AMM) and Metal Injection Molding (MIM) customers. In addition, the Company has active development projects with top-tier medical, automotive and consumer products companies, each with potential for volume, multi-year production.”

Dr. Bromage continued that “several projects are underway in collaboration with Yihao Metals, taking advantage of Liquidmetal’s amorphous metals expertise and proximity to US customers to develop parts that can be produced in high volumes in Asia. Liquidmetal and Yihao are working together to improve the cost of commercial AMM machines, alloys and processing methods to open markets globally.”

[The Paraclete]

Excellent point! You may be 100% correct. LM106c may be exempt from the provisions in the MTA. Thank you for pointing that out.

However, I’m not an attorney so I am not certain that LM106c, or any other new formulas are exempt, because of the wording in the MTA:

LMT shall not, and shall ensure that its direct and indirect subsidiaries shall not, directly, or indirectly through or in association with any person, business enterprise or otherwise, (i) develop, design, manufacture, sell, offer for sale or otherwise distribute or provide any (x) Consumer Electronic Products or (y) materials, components, manufacturing services or technology for use or integration therewith; (ii) own or acquire any interest in, manage, operate, control or participate in any business which is engaged in any of the activities described in preceding subsection (i); or (iii) act as a consultant or advisor, loan or otherwise provide funds or assistance of any sort, or sell or license intellectual property to any business enterprise which is or is attempting to engage in any of the activities listed in subsection (i) or (ii) hereof.

If there is an attorney in this forum, can you please comment on whether or not, in your opinion, LM106c is exempt from the provisions regarding the non-compete restrictions.

[anose]

Are you sure? I'm not an expert on the legal language, but I thought that anything that was under development during the capture period was included in the agreement.

[Watts Watt]

I do concede that the LM106 formula, in itself, does open some doors for CE that will be very beneficial to Eontec, itself.

I am not, however, convinced that the Eontec machines themselves or the processes inherent, escape the purview of all of the CIP patents and inherent linkages to newer technologies of manufacture such as Eontec's machines.

In other words, I am not certain that all CIP patents, particularly those co-developed with Apple will bare the scrutiny of analysis of Eontecs design and process technology against them.

I suppose it will take litigation to prove Eontecs immunity from infringement or untouchability from Apple.

I would love to be wrong. But if I were wrong, I do not believe that Lugee would have made all of those trips to Apple to discuss the conflicts of the MTA agreement, (not the TTA) which is PERPETUAL.

So, unless both the formula and the process technology are totally exclusive and unique of any previous CIP, I believe all of us need to receive a legal joint declaration from Apple that Eontec and LQMT utilizing Eontec technology are completely immune from litigation with Apple.

It will be very difficult for anything short of this legal ruling for me and most on this board to be persuaded that Lugee can freely operate within the CE realm.

Particularly with the new press against IP theft and IP utilization violations by Europe and the US and Canada, I just am not willing to buy into the "no holds barred" concept recently promulgated here.

This is my extremely humble opinion and based upon real life first hand experience with reverse engineering and patent infringement lawsuits in the millions of dollars.