1. The Crucible-related MTA between Apple and LQMT explicitly excludes a requirement that Apple use the LiquidMetal tradename for the amorphous metall alloy patent protected intellectual properties covered in the Crucible-Apple/LQMT agreement, in any public communication of Apple products by Apple.
2. In the event that one of those patents is applied by Apple to one of its products, LQMT's "market development" and Sales tools can refer to the fact that these are materials patents shared with LQMT for non consumer electronics applications. But delivering on the promise is another matter altogether.
3. LQMT may not license the technology to buyers of the Engel machine for consumer electronics applications, because the same MTA noted above prohibits LQMT from doing so.
4. There is not a single public statement of reference from Engel, outside the LQMT generated PR, that Engel acknowledges the purported machine even exists.
5. Tom Steipp, LQMT CEO, dodged a direct question pertaining to whether or not the sale of the Engel machine, which Steipp then and since explicitly stated would be Sold by Engel, would generate revenue to LQMT directly from the sale of a machine.
6. If LQMT is to receive revenue for licensing rights to use its patents, to produce items for non consumer electronics applications, which in the same post Annual Shareholder Meeting Q&A was stated as the LQMT Plan, then such application must actually happen and proven in an ongoing production role.
7. Any attempt by a buyer/lessee of The Engel Machine, and licensee of the LQMT patents will not deliver revenues to LQMT unless the customer is actually able to make the system work to their production requirements at a cost acceptable fashion.
8. Apple is not going to pay LQMT for anything, directly or indirectly, because there is nothing more LQMT can do to earn revenues from Apple, nothing Apple does not have the right to do without LQMT, and nothing Apple cannot get done as well without LQMT.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
