To Sula's original post. There was a run up to 1.84 in the spring of 2015, not long after the video leaked out. Then a summer drop off to .74 in August.

There's more than enough evidence out in the ether about the ruthless reputation of the company we've long been associated with.

As much as there would have been near term gain from an exclusive deal and a run to NASDAQ, that is just ONE company in a universe of MANY companies that require the same solution to the Moore's Law problem. The reference to "gain greater control over its (our) own destiny" stood out for me in Suresh's letter. Is it possible the terms of a potential deal were too exclusive/restrictive? Again, just me spit-balling. But the closer you get to completition (the recent patent approvals offer some hope there) the more leverage you have with the wider spectrum of potential customers/partners.

If you were the big company, you would 100% ask for head start early adoption exclusivity, wouldn't you?