News Focus
News Focus
icon url

jpaige17

05/28/12 11:52 PM

#8609 RE: Watts Watt #8608

I've been trying to figure this out myself. I'll ramp up my research in this specific area and see if I can come up with anything in the next few days.
icon url

ZincFinger

05/29/12 9:23 AM

#8618 RE: Watts Watt #8608

A major reason I've really hesitated to establish a position in this company is the question of just how good (or otherwise) is it's IP lock on what it's doing? I can see no reason why some other company could not at any time develop another alloy as good or even superior.

In addition what company owns/will own the IP on the special injectin molding apparatus that will be so central to the technology: LMQT or the company it's contracting to do the injection molding. It appears that that company is doing the development of the molds. So it will own that IP. And if some other company develops a competing alloy it would be free to produce theirs as well.

While there is ALWAYS in high tech the potential for another company to develop a better product, the bar to another company doing so appears to be far lower here than is usually the case. The possible combinations of allows is virtually infinite and I've seen no indication whatsoever that LMQT has discovered some underlying principle that allows it to patent the whole range of possibilities that would work. from what I've seen it's IP is based rather on specific alloys. That leaves much greater potential for others to develop improvements. And should the product be highly successful, many will try.
icon url

jpaige17

06/01/12 1:00 AM

#8847 RE: Watts Watt #8608

While I can't say with certainty, I do believe that these Nickel and Beryllium free bulk metallic glasses are not covered under any of Liquidmetal's patents. The closest one of our patents comes to covering it is this (at least that I could find):

http://www.google.com/patents/US5735975

Inoue's Nickel and Beryllium free formula is this:

Zr45+xCu40-xAl7Pd5Nb3, where x=0–20

Ours in patent number 5735975 is this:

(Zr,Hf).sub.a (Al,Zn).sub.b (Ti,Nb).sub.c (Cu.sub.x Fe.sub.y (Ni,Co).sub.z).sub.d wherein the constraints upon the formula are: a ranges from 45 to 65 atomic percent, b ranges from 5 to 15 atomic percent, c ranges from 4 to 7.5 atomic percent, d comprises the balance, d.multidot.y is less than 10 atomic percent, and x/z ranges from 0.5 to 2.


So, because their Niobium content is only 3 percent, they can get away with it (in my opinion). We are required to have a Niobium (and/or Titanium) content of 4-7.5 percent. They've also got Palladium in theirs, whereas our formula in this patent has no allowance for Palladium.


I may have missed something in one of the other patents, but I'm fairly confident they would not have to pay any royalties to Liquidmetal.