I think I understand why the 100nm reduction was not done at a 3rd party foundry link p22. Let say the third parties (BAE or another) have asked for a 50% joint interest in intellectual property jointly developed, Poet has chosen to develop everything they can in the Poet Lab. Creating, as we know, new IP alone. They now have the ''how to reduce'', with all the IP fully owned, they can move to a third party lab.

Does it make sense?

From Form 20-F p.12: ''We currently have a collaborative agreement for process development with BAE Systems, Nashua, New Hampshire (“BAE”), which provides for the joint development program of the Company’s POET technology and undivided 50% joint interest in intellectual property jointly developed thereunder (subject to the Company’s and its subsidiaries’ obligations to UCONN), with royalties running from each to the other in connection with revenues generated from the intellectual property''

''While ownership rights will likely vary from program to program, in general we will seek to retain ownership rights to developments directly relating to POET and such third parties will retain rights specific to the application under development.''