I wish to dispel the 'PET is dead' interpretation given by some here to Suresh's AGM response to what I call the AVES question.

For those who have not closed their minds to the possibility that some form of tech transfer occurred to a third party in August 2015, we should bear in mind at that point in time PTI's focus was actually on selling IP.

What I call the Aves question at the AGM was rather important in determining what happened.  The question is handled at about  01 20:40 on the AGM recording, you should listen to what was said again. 

Let me sumarise what SV said, it was that the work on PET in 2015 was to drive VSLI circuits at 110 and 40 nm like the silicon world... He then emphasised that PTI's focus is firmly on integration and that PET was not an application for us to pursue.  Note that he did not respond to neither the Synopsys nor the PDK parts of the AVES question that had been read out.  

My point is that by saying ' us'  he did not rule out the possibility that parts of PET or ,'full fat POET' for that matter, could be or were transferred to another entity for development specific development.  

Also by not answering the question of PDK transfer or the Synopsys question that was asked, and knowing fullwell that the weight of the question was to establish for whom where the PDK intended back then, he was in my opinion being evasive or fulfilling the need for confidentiality perhaps. Unfortunately, the phrasing of the Aves question allowed SV far too much wriggle room to really clear up what happened in August 2015 either way and the matter remains open.

Elsewhere SV made it quite clear that development of individual components of POET was not commercially viable for POET PTI is a platform for integration, but no where have I heard that selling POET IP for others to develop is off the cards.

For Baba and others - I would be happy to give up on this theme if SV had clearly killed off the notion that those PDK were intended for a third party, he had a clear opportunity to do so in response to the AVES question at the AGM but chose not to in his weasel worded response.

I would be grateful if others would not silence my views by spurious use of the violation tool.

sula