To help you save time on your next reply:
1) Please cite which things Steipp has said that you ARE happy with.
2) I do not believe Mr. Steipp is a con man. But he is accountable and obligated to others, not completely his own man. In such a case there is bound to be a spillover of attributes of those to whom he is bound.
3) If his statements are for the procurement departments, they certainly are not convincing in the least and he must hold them in disdain, if so.
4) It is difficult for me to assess what your meaning is here. The usages of CE for Apple and Non CE for LQMT are well-defined by the C.I.P distribution of patent rights. The clients usage of LQMT are unique and apart from Apple's intended employment of liquidmetal.
But in the event, that LQMT could be ready to employ an Apple patent before Apple itself (I find that incredibly hard to accept) were to do so, I would think that Apple would welcome the test marketing in the field.............and, especially, for 3 different clients with 3 different needs.