To be honest, I'm actually getting tired of the old "buyout vs licensing" debate. One begets the other. You can't get a buyout until you can prove that your technology can generate revenue. Plain and simple.

Long term, POET (the company) is not built to manufacture chips. They make the recipies, not the dinner. Getting into that spectrum to basically compete against other more established SC companies would bring a whole new list of challenges. I don't think this was ever the intention.

Then, if you're a current semi-conductor maker, who's entire business model is dependant on market share, would you seriously allow some small upstart to come in and take your business away? Of course not. That's the tech world now. The rich get richer.

The What's Ap valuation example comes up often. We're moving into a world where we're running more aps, needing more power, using more data...the effectiveness of which depends on S/C performance.

I'm predicting the ripple effect of even one licensing agreement being swift and blinding in favour of a liquidity event. Big tech cannot allow disruptive technology to infringe on its market share...period. The good news for anyone holding POET stock will be that the decision of when to buy and sell will be decided on our behalf, once a reasonable price is negotiated. And, from everything I gather and have heard from the POET principles, there is no way they are giving this company away.

And as for tax implications...really? If you don't have this stock in your TFSA(s) or RRSP's, you're crazy. Capital Gains tax is based on 50% of the gain. If you're holding POET in a non registered account, AND you have TFSA room between you and your spouse, you should transfer the shares over, now. My brokerage moved my shares over in kind. Even still, if you're making huge gains...are you really complaining? The alternative being, tax losses?