Dear Inthisthinrain (ITTR),

Thank you for conveying your impressions re TB following your conversation with Robert Feri, but that does not close the loop for me.

I think that we cannot escape the following quote kindly posted by Action_or_Reation, that clearly conveys that the management of PTI has had or more likely has a confidential relationship with a certain entity. Whilst we do not know with any certainty who that entity is. Yet when there is undoubtedly an Apple executive as a member of the TRAB surely its reasonable to say that his presence at least indicates that the 'entity' could well be Apple. In any case RF could not elaborate on the matter for ITTR because of quote 1.

Quote 1 - from SV at the Operational Update 16 Feb 16 - at 36:12 minutes on the transcript

"We cannot comment on specific contributions or work by the T-RAB or its individual members until such time as material events transpire, which necessitates public disclosure. So, premature disclosure or speculation in this regard, at this point, would not be appropriate".

What intrigues me about this statement is how it links with the work that was being done at Stoors in late 2014 to August 2015. At that time the focus was PET, though POET's optical elements were being developed in parallel, so we were told by GT. Synopsys was engaged and it was clear that PDK were being prepared. I understand that their purpose enables the transfer of POET technology and IP to a third party or partner (PDK...will allow POET to provide detailed design information to industry fab partners and customers) see quote 2 below. BAE were then also engaged for six months and I understand that was because of the difficulties with the 'splutter' tool, to manufacture something, I know not what, but it was clear that BAE's work was also needed to establish a proof point for the entity in question, effectively as a demonstration that whatever was being manufactured was indeed capable of being mass manufactured - a proof point, There was also the issue of the ring oscillator as a proof point. Note all proof points were admitted as being specified by a third party and weregoverning PTI's work at that time.

Quote 2- from the NR of 2 Sep 14

'The PET/PDK is scheduled to be available at the end of Q4 2014 and will allow POET to provide detailed design information to industry fab partners and customers. This will enable pre-semiconductor design evaluation to integrate optical, analog and digital functions together. PET-based electronic devices represent a breakthrough in performance and power efficiency.'

From <http://agoracom.com/ir/POETTechnologies/forums/discussion/topics/673386-the-rocket/?message_id=2108787#message_2108787>

We also have to ask the question why in February 20 16 was management explaining why they could not discus their relationship with the entity or comment about TB. Firstly, the statement is clear evidence that the 'entity' still existed after the strategy pivot in Sep 16. I therefore have no doubt, until it is denied by management, that some form of contract or business arrangement persists from August 2015 even to today. Secondly, I cannot accept that this relationship should be discounted from our DD here as some have mooted.

How then could the new CEO suddenly, in Sep Q3 2015, 'pivoted' the focus from PET to AOC. Simply put my theory is that PET moved to the 'entity'. Remember that aAt this point no results were given for the work undertaken to Aug 2015 either at Stoors or BAE, we were frustratingly just left in the dark. Whilst I like SV's new strategy, I find the notion that PET was just dumped very hard to swallow and have conjectured that silence speaks louder than words. The answer to that silence of course is to do with Quote 1. The fact is that there will be no disclosure 'until such materiel events transpire'. The question is when will such materiel events transpire?

I have looked carefully at the financial statements since then and have not been able to see payments for Synopsys work, please enlighten me if otherwise, but I put it to you that an arrangement is in hand paid for by the 'entity' for the onward development of the work transferred using PDK. PC certainly said he would rather have 40 engineers than NRE at this time. It is interesting to speculate also, that as both PC's and GT's departure were not long after this, and why not IF? they deemed their work with POET complete when POET IP was transferred from Stoors for development by a prestigious partner as well as having the comfort of the arrival of the 'superstars' to take the company forward on the AOC data communications track. A WinWin situation if ever there were and for me the reason of the current confidence that allows SV to spend purchasing acquisitions of DenseLight and BB without seeming concern about burn rates.

Click forward one year to Q3 2016 and here we are seemingly winding up to an 'inflection point' in POET's development. Shelf agreements making 50M PTK shares immediately available and no evidence discernible that allows us to discount the fact that a materiel event may transpire that involves an 'entity' that for me offer some reasonable degree of probability to be Apple, one of the most secretive companies in the World. Is it not feasible that commercial confidence and the fact that the development costs are met by the 'entity' would account for the silence of the company and their ability to suppress their duty to report?

I have deliberately left out the unprovable intelligence that floats around including, up to 15 Apple Engineers at Stoors in March 15 and talk of an Apple 10% stake in POET as evidence. Just rumours. But what cannot be discounted is the big spend on legal costs deals equals lawyers fees.

Finally, a re read of the London Investors Club transcript is rather good value as it reveals quite a lot about the underlying strategy at that time and the fact that nothing was really new in the SV Technical briefing a year ago. It also creates a clearer picture of the '40 Engineer deal'

Quote 3 PC at the London Investors Circle Briefing.

35:26 – And I was saying some gentlemen earlier on that for our first partnership, Ajit and I were looking at these companies and we don’t need them to write a big cheque. What we really want them to do is to invest 30 or 40 engineers of their time. We need them to invest some of their know-how to partner with our engineers in order to take an end-product company and say, “We really want to be here in two years,” and get POET to do it. Because after that basically the world would be on our oyster. All the other markets that POET has will be substantiated with one commercial deal. We anticipate that commercial deal in fiscal 2015.

From <https://rainerklute.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/video-transcript-poet-technologies-at-city-investors-circle/>

sula