@mosen
Thank you, it seems you searched much more than me.
But maybe I should explain what was meant: A trademark is sometime more the commercial name than the product itself. Rolex for example use the name Rolesor for a red gold compounding that doesn't change color after some time (they say). But for sure you can use the same additional materials or.at.least change a little percent of the components and sale it. But you can't call it Rolesor.
So maybe Turing can apply some similar procedure but not.call it Liquidmetal.

It all comes down to one question regarding Liquidmorphium:

"while it is based on the work of Atakan Peker (co-creator of Liquidmorphium) , how much of this work does NOT rely on the patents owned and licensed by Liquidmetal and Apple?"

This whole discussion just makes me wonder what the point of giving stupid names to anything remotely technology-related even is. Imagine going to a hobby shop, "hello sir can I interest you in our newest drill model, it's made of pure liquidmorphium(tm)(r)(c)". Does 'liquid' even hold any meaning anymore? Do the people responsible for these names know that a liquid is basically the one thing you don't want to associate with a phone?

Names matter and Apple knows how to milk it. Just look at their "pressure sensitive" technology. It has been around for decades, known as "resistive". Now Apple comes along, digs it out from archives, gives it a new name and the masses swoon.

Troubles start when someone else tries to do the same. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.

Correct, let me be more clear on the difference between Trademark and Patent.
I myself own a trademark 'moSushi' being a name for the services and products i offer.

If Sushi was a patented food by say Kraft Foods, i would have to pay fees for even using the phrase Sushi.
Even more so if i prepare the food touching patented utility models, meaning it looks like Kraft Foods Sushi, prepared in an equal way or with equal ingredients.

Now TRI naming its alloy "Liquidmorphium" as a trademark may be allowed.
But they still need to prove making the alloy does not contradict other patents.

No. Sorry. My mistake... 8M was still quite near what i've heard before... Again, sorry...

For what I understand, the "liquid" part in various trade names given to amorphous alloys references their amorphic structure, unusual for metals (typically quite regular crystals), but common in liquids -- even apparently "solid", as glass. They have some interesting (for metals) properties, for one -- excellent thermoplasticity at relatively low temperatures, with no hard melting point (just like glass compared to steel -- there is a reason one can blow glass, but steel has to be mauled).

They're not using resistive screens like old Nokia phones. Those used a flexible layer which you pushed against another layer creating a circuit.

Apple use a glass front with a capacitive screen and 96 strain gauges. It doesn't just know where you're pressing, it knows how hard.

Story continues:

http://www.sss.fi/2016/03/turing-rob...n-toukokuussa/

SSS has done a short interview with Turing's CEO. According to article, new jobs at Salo will be openly advertised (hopefully that was correct translation for "avoin haku") in May, but Turing will be hiring people already before that.

More of the same, the CEO claims that they favor people who have worked in Nokia factory previously and that the company already owns the production machinery.

http://www.tivi.fi/Kaikki_uutiset/ss...kuussa-6310366