Replies to post #182977 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[Pollux]

I understand the premise he is getting to - LQMT is still in the CE business.

No CE statement purpose was to prevent Apple reaching into Eontec IP.
Note PLA was drafted before Feb 2018.

However, if its about 106c, I'm not following the logic - either the no CE statement was in regard to Eontec IP or 106c, which in either case would be a conflict of the statement?

If 106c is derived from the PLA and has a NO CE clause, then I get and understand how it can be used for medical but still not CE?