Dear Rainer,

I find it odd that whilst at one time this board accepted the notion that there was a Big Customer in the background setting technical goals for PET.No one has offered an answer to the question whether that relationship did or did not progress, we certainly have not been told officially one way or the other.

Your response tome earlier today tells me that any deal with such a company would be a matter for disclosure, I presume that by that you mean that you do not think that this relationship actually got anywhere.In addition your last post to Oldgreg would suggest that you feel that, if the Big Customer was Apple, it was a good thing not to have the fruit company as a first company and many would agree with you. However, I cannot understand why you would want to obfuscate what was once an important and much followed notion on this board or indeed why any other board leaders do not want to offer any opinion on the matter.That is barring brother DNWL, who like me thinks there are sufficient signs to at least make it worth pondering whether it did in fact develop and to consider that PET IP developmentmay wellhave transferred to that Big Customer to develop a knock out PET product of his choosing whilst allowing PTI to focus on POET's optical magic and build the VCSELs targeted at data centres and optical data communications.

There isundoubtedly a danger on this board of interfering with the company's need to conduct its business relationships outside the spotlight of this forum.But whenwe arepresented by the company with facts like Tony Blevin involvement in the TRAB, the desire for a 40 engineer partnership stated by PC at the London CIC event, explanations given for the delays in the June milestones was a consequence of customer led commercial interests i.e. The customer wassetting technical goals ...etc. I cannot see how fertile minds are not going to be stimulated.

That said I am quite happy that the talented experienced executive team we now have know best where to focus the company's resources.But I simply cannot accept that eighteen months of PET development were set aside for thechange of focus they determined on arrival, since the two projects could easily be run along side each other providing the big customer/ partner provided the principle resources.In fact if the Customer went for exclusivitythey would not want the company to compete with them on PET until they gained the full advantage they sought from being the first to market with a disruptive PET based technology product.Unlike your negativity Rainer towards a fruit company deal, I see this as a 'WinWin' situation for shareholders given the reality that PTI has insufficient resources to develop both at the same time, yet by parallel development of different aspects of POET/PET IP we will gain Royalties and some large revenue deal on PET IP from the Big Customer and sell our VCSELs at great profit.

Isincerely hope that some here can see why my curiosity has been aroused as to why everything has gone silent on the matter or otherwise I'm wasting my time flogging a dead horse. If so, would a kind board leader or erudite poster please put me out of my misery. Any views on this?

A fraustrated, (Wales lost to Australia by a small margin in the Rugby World Cup on Saturday.

sulasailor