Replies to post #170107 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[handsomehank]

Thanks for sharing again Josh, when you say these are responses from LQMT I’m assuming it is LQMT Hong Kong correct?
TWT&GLTALongs

[PatentGuy1]

Thank you Josh. Very informative.

What is the source of these questions and quotations? Knowing the source of the quotations would really help clarify the quotations, e.g., without knowing the source it is ambiguous on who the "we" refers to in many of the quotations. A link would be greatly appreciated.

Now that 105s has been removed from design guide 4.4. Can I assume 106c “WILL NOT” trigger cross license agreement for LQMT production use also?

We have previously disclosed our co-development of alloys with Eon under the license agreement. Lowering the cost and expanding the production platforms under which 105s (to the extent utilized) and 106c can be used would fall under these efforts.

Do you have any idea on what is meant by the phrase "production use"? The only non-geographical restriction ("production use"?) that I can think of is that the license (PLA) excludes the field of consumer electronics.

I recognize the quotations from January 29, 2019, and October 24, 2018, as coming from the Liquidmetal Blog, but I cannot find the other quotations on Liquidmetal's website (www.liquidmetal.com).

[DMN]

I can understand why this is the last time you will address it. It is thorough. Thank you.

[PatentGuy1]

Seeing as how you refuse to provide a link to any of the quotations and refuse to explain why you won't, one is left to say April Fools!

[BBboy]

One of your best posts ever.

Thanks for taking out the time to clarify these things.

This should put to rest questions about 106c.

[Pollux]

I respect your work/efforts


But I still don't see a clear, direct answer - for instance:

Out of those 3 alloys, does any of them trigger the cross license agreement between Eon and LQMT in order to the shared by the two companies?

While not patented, the chemical composition/ specifications is shared under the spirit of the Parallel License Agreement.

"Spirit"? Very non-committal word. Basically saying, we can sort of get around any agreement with 106c, is the way it reads; specifically, since it is not patented and could have been created before the PLA.


Can I assume LM105 “WILL NOT” trigger cross license agreement for LQMT production use?

We have previously disclosed our co-development of alloys with Eon under the license agreement. Lowering the cost and expanding the production platforms under which LM105 can be used would fall under these efforts.

Now that 105s has been removed from design guide 4.4. Can I assume 106c “WILL NOT” trigger cross license agreement for LQMT production use also?

We have previously disclosed our co-development of alloys with Eon under the license agreement. Lowering the cost and expanding the production platforms under which 105s (to the extent utilized) and 106c can be used would fall under these efforts.

If yes and Eon has plan to use 106c for their production use. Can I assume 106c “WILL” trigger cross license agreement for EON production use then?

We have previously disclosed our co-development of alloys with Eon under the license agreement. Lowering the cost and expanding the production platforms under which 105s (to the extent utilized) and 106c can be used would fall under these efforts.

All of the above are called a copy/paste answer in order to give an answer that has you running to the agreement to extrapolate it for yourself.

The fact in all of the answers is that it is NOT distinguished in any specifics on what LM106c means for LQMT. It simply sidesteps a direct answer at all. Good information for sure, job well done.

But, if you notice how the response discusses the fact that the material is "not protected by patents" and never discusses if the recipe that is used/promoted of 106c is actually a preexisting recipe; whereby, the "spirit" of the agreement would allow for use of LM106c, if created before the PLA, to be used without subject to PLA. This is the way I understand it from my risk perspective.

[PayMEmf]

Thanks josh!

[Watts Watt]

This brings to mind all of the iterations that were made in RSM on the first Engel machines.

Obviously, Lugee is undergoing the same iteration developing process in China.

ERGO, still a work in progress. Hence, the very low sales volume of Eon fabricated parts: only 90K USD per month so far.

Still many iterations away from commecialization.

[JoTu]

great post josh so much information and the followup posts you could charge money for that research thanks for sharing.

[jaybiscuit]

For anyone who can’t figure out how we get paid on Asus...read this post from Josh. 106c is joint w Eon, also it utilizes Eon processes which are also outside of CIP

[Pollux]

Notice the same copy and paste answer to your questions?

I know you know this but that is a lawyer generated response - when your question came in, it was forwarded to whoever is the one who is protecting/representing Li/Eon, most likely.

Highly TBD still


One thing in all of this research Josh, and I respect your research; is still are NO JDA's, anywhere!! Not one...when this happens, well see the true story from the sources mouth..

[jaybiscuit]

So to recap—106c is outside CIP and inside the PLA. Thanks Joshua!

[PatentGuy1]

LQMT response on Alloy Clarification. This will be the last time I addressed this topic.



April 20th 2018


Can u share with us why DC-105s and INJ-105s are removed off Table 1 on this latest revision of design guide?

We found that 106c and 105s perform comparably and have decided to standardize on a single alloy for the EON system. EON also uses 106c as their primary alloy, allowing us to collaborate on quality and cost improvements.

Can you share the source for the quotation? Some sources are more pertinent to LQMT than others.

[PatentGuy1]

LQMT response on Alloy Clarification. This will be the last time I addressed this topic.



April 20th 2018


Can u share with us why DC-105s and INJ-105s are removed off Table 1 on this latest revision of design guide?

We found that 106c and 105s perform comparably and have decided to standardize on a single alloy for the EON system. EON also uses 106c as their primary alloy, allowing us to collaborate on quality and cost improvements.

Can you share the source for the quotation? Some sources are more pertinent to LQMT than others.

[PatentGuy1]

April 24th 2018


We know LM105 is LQMT Formulation (IP)
Please clarify 105s and 106c for its formulation (IP) ownership.

The LM105, 105c and 106c alloy formulations are not protected by patents specifically. However, all of these formulations are made within tightly controlled and proprietary specifications. For example, all constituent metals have impurities such as iron, sulphur or tin, and these alloys are highly reactive with oxygen. We invest heavily to understand which impurities at what levels can be tolerated by our process. Achieving very high purity is extremely expensive, but allowing certain levels of impurities can compromise surface finish, the ability to completely fill a mold, strength, fatigue, corrosion, etc. Knowing how to specify cost-effective, high performing alloys is part of our core intellectual property. Comprehensive analysis of various alloys is time consuming and expensive. Hence, our decision to focus on only two standard alloys, namely LM105 and 106c.

Let me frame my question in a slightly different way.
There were 4 alloys which was spec in design guide 4.2 namely INJ-LM105, INJ-105s, DC-105s,DC-106c.
I assume INJ-105s and DC-105s are the same alloy just being used in two different machines.
Is that correct?

This would be correct.

If yes, then there were 3 alloys namely LM105, 105s, 106c.
Is that correct?

Correct.

Out of those 3 alloys, does any of them trigger the cross license agreement between Eon and LQMT in order to the shared by the two companies?

While not patented, the chemical composition/ specifications is shared under the spirit of the Parallel License Agreement.

I was under the assumption that 105s is Eon formulation while LM105 and 106c are LQMT formulation. Are you stated none of those alloys are under patent control?

None are under patent control, but that doesn’t mean the material specifications are public or otherwise known outside of LQMT.

Can I assume LM105 “WILL NOT” trigger cross license agreement for LQMT production use?

We have previously disclosed our co-development of alloys with Eon under the license agreement. Lowering the cost and expanding the production platforms under which LM105 can be used would fall under these efforts.

Now that 105s has been removed from design guide 4.4. Can I assume 106c “WILL NOT” trigger cross license agreement for LQMT production use also?

We have previously disclosed our co-development of alloys with Eon under the license agreement. Lowering the cost and expanding the production platforms under which 105s (to the extent utilized) and 106c can be used would fall under these efforts.

If yes and Eon has plan to use 106c for their production use. Can I assume 106c “WILL” trigger cross license agreement for EON production use then?

We have previously disclosed our co-development of alloys with Eon under the license agreement. Lowering the cost and expanding the production platforms under which 105s (to the extent utilized) and 106c can be used would fall under these efforts.

For metal purity (hence high cost), can I assume LM105 is the “pure hence high cost” version while 106c can have artificial defect due to low purity but can be marketed for lower cost.

We currently only view at an application level. Given size parameters under the two platforms (and alloy characteristics) we look at LM 105 on the Engel platform as the best fit for medical grade parts and 106c on Eon for industrial and automotive applications.

Does machine output (Engel vs Eon) contribute different quality result with the same alloy? In another word, will LM105 produce better result when use in Engel machine than Eon machine?

Each alloy is used under a different platform. As you can deduce from the design guide, LM105 is used on the Engel platform and 106c on the Eon platform.

Can you share the source for the quotation? Some sources are more pertinent to LQMT than others.
SAY WHAT YOU MEAN
MEAN WHAT YOU SAY

[joshuaeyu]

LQMT response on Alloy Clarification. This will be the last time I addressed this topic.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147941719

To be fair to most sincere iHoppers, I am perfectly willing to share with you the source of the LQMT answer. Feel free to PM me for the FACT.

Due to all respect to LQMT employees, the answer will not be shared in open public.

For those who does not have PM capability and/or under my "ignored" list, your request will not come thru.

[jaybiscuit]

Everyone read this again so we don’t go back down the same path again and again....This post by joshuaeyu is even more relevant now. Thanks again josh!