Replies to post #234144 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[iateclube]

Excellent analysis, in addition to which, as a practical matter LL sits on both sides of the table and can alter, cancel, or just ignore the agreements with Eontec. One thing LL will not do, is sue Eontec (and thus the politburo) for performance. So at least in my view, the agreement is unenforceable and of little value unless LL (and the poliburo) make it otherwise. They hold all the levers.

[Almosthere]

I think you’re wrong about some of these points. For example the MTA clarifies that the cross licensing agreement means that EONTEC is sharing their IP and processes with LQMT. Therefore, sales in lqmt territories where lqmt gets paid would include products/parts made by EONTEC using their IP and processes.

Enforcement is a moot point. Eontec put the territories wording in the document because they plan on paying out revenue to lqmt. Your interpretation totally dismisses this and I believe is erroneous. Again others have argued persuasively for this position. Just because you express your position to others doesn’t mean it’s correct.

[Almosthere]

By the way why do you sit in your seat as moderator and allow certain poster to belittle others and yet you do nothing when it’s pointed out.

[Almosthere]

By the way I am tired of going back and forth with you about this, so don’t bother responding to me.

[Monroe1]

5. The EONTEC/LQMT cross licensing agreement provides for exclusive territories but fails to establish enforcement mechanisms.

I would assume... but we know what that can mean.... however, wouldn't there be implied enforcement mechanisms and no need for specifying such?
I dunno.
Thanks