in other words they were forced to do it. Same thing I said could have occured. You just used different words"

No . . . I'm saying the opposite of that. They were asked by being asked. BCD's first point encapsulates what I was trying to say and I was going to leave it at that, but more needs to be said.

First, nobody was forced to do anything. Furthermore, I don't recall anything you wrote that could be rephrased to look like what I wrote. I find both of your replies really confusing.

What was in question was whether the fact that POET was asked to work on the 100nm was a theory floated by members of this BB, or if it was ever stated by the company. This is where I was able to shed light.

The company has said that they "we're asked" to demonstrate the 100nm. End of debate.

Here's a couple of other points for clarity:

- POET was been committed to the 100nm goal since December, as stated in the laser NR. It wasn't made a milestone until they were asked to demonstrate it by another party.

- The fact that you may have said it "could have" occurred is irrelevant. I was specifically told that POET was asked to make the 100nm shrink. So, it's no longer speculation. The only additional point I wanted to make in my post was that I have no specific knowledge of the nature of that conversation. The fact is, I was bending over backwards to appear exaggeratedly fair-minded. What I think is really going on is that the company in question is willing to give POET time to demonstrate a chip that will outperform Si CMOS, which is stuck at under 4GHz. After which we will have a partner or a buyer - whichever is best for shareholders.

- I've refrained from throwing terms like basher around because I think you have lots invested and you are interested in a positive outcome. What I really don't understand (and what could be ammunition for anyone who wants to call you a basher) is why you continually persist with a false claim that POET was rebuffed by industry heavyweights, lead to a change of strategy: i.e, from buyout to licensing.

" . . . they didn't get the auction bids expected and decided this was the best way forward."

This is just simply not true. POET probably had meetings with potentially interested companies about the technology around the time of the investors meeting, when they were filling the last PP. At that time they were able to confidently state that POET would be sold by next year. The CP described a "liquidity event" which we thought was the sale they were talking about, and it probably was, although a post by Chris indicated that POET could move to NASDAQ once they start getting revenue and this would be out "exit strategy."

Following this, POET began working on the WP for formal meetings with companies regarding the technology, but this wasn't done until the end of Q2, therefore there was no time to be shot down. Also, they were able to acquire AC, and he likely convinced POET to reconsider the quick sale.

Note, that all this could have happened without disappointing bids for the company forcing their hand towards licensing.

Aves, I really don't get why you set up this false dichotomy where POET either passed or failed their attempt to sell the company. It's made even worse by the fact that the dichotomy is set up with no possibility to select a successful outcome - the failure of POET is the default. And then when you repeat it every few weeks with so much evidence discrediting the possibility, I find I'm at a loss to understand.