Should one entity acquire the technology, it may pursue licensing it as an industry standard.

Typically, standards bodies require licensing terms to be FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing

At this stage though, consider the windmill you're tilting at: any mix of investors are bound to have varying time horizons (lengths to which they are willing to commit their capital).

The day-traders we all love to hate are one end of the extreme: they choose not to commit beyond one session.

Japanese zaibatsu and keiretsu are at the the other end of the extreme (e.g., where the corporate planning cycle is 250 years and longer).

Would you rather have POET acquired by MegaCo (e.g., AAPL) and pocket your $50/share next year? very reasonable, especially for those who's time horizon is not measured in decades.

Or wait to have it broadly licensed to the industry, pocketing an inflation-adjusted $3/share annually for the next 20 years? also very reasonable, if the period is appropriate to your goals as an investor.

Consider, both may come to fruition.

In an acquisition scenario, MegaCo may -- and probably would, in turn (perhaps once some initial exclusivity has run the course) -- fairly and reasonabily license in order to promote industry-wide adoption.

GLTA,

R.