"We have been hearing the same garbage from the same people for 2 years now and it never comes true."

Garbage. Speaking of . . .

"Incredible progress? We went from a publically stated (recorded verbally and in writing) that a liquidity event would take place this calendar year. The share price was expected to be $2.50 before bidding started."

3 technical milestones, 2 PPs (saving us from bankruptcy), nearly completely new management, addition of new tech heavyweights to the team, establishment of new PR and IR team, multiple published articles, and the list goes on. All of this happened in the last year. Where have you been?!

Yes, the original intent was to raise the SP by now, and the fact is the investors POET contacted didn't step up as expected. This has NOTHING to do with the technology, it is all to do with the inability of these investors to invest before deals are in place. It's still too risky for them. This could be viewed as a misstep by management, but I see it as a learning experience.

"Lee was to drop off chips and wait for the phone to ring off the hook. US Investors were to buy into the open market and drive up the price. Didn't happen, why? Because the plan changed and US investors see risk (IMO)."

It is known through IR that the decision was made after the investors meeting that letting prospective partners have the chips exposed us to unnecessary risk of revealing proprietary material. And IMO this isn't a deal breaker for US investors. If anything it reduces risk.

"The dr is hired (and I questioned this repeatedly back in the spring if anyone cares to recall. I asked why now? Why was he hired? The optimists wanted to hear none of that however, everything is in great shape) and the sale is no longer on. We are licensing (maybe) instead. The optimists believe this is a master plan, I don't. I believe significant offers did not materialize."

What a nice piece of revisionist history this is, and that says a great deal considering I'm not even including the part about Copetti's statement taken out of context (which was already debunked by other posters).

When AC came on board, POET hadn't even engaged potential partners with lab data and chips. How could POET's reconsideration of licensing have anything to do with a lack of offers, when they hadn't even met with them yet!!

You have pushed this notion that POET failed to get offers and changed to a licensing model. Not only does this twist the timeline in a way that would even make a contortionist vomit, there's absolutely no evidence in support of this idea.

I could address the other points about the delayed full integration and the risk of attaining 100nm gates, but believe it or not the 'Pied Pipers' have already acknowledged possible risk in other posts, so there is no need.

I'm willing to continue this debate if you have any questions, because I’m not letting these false statements pass without a challenge any longer.