Little thought experiment here to pass the time. We've had no end of posts (some rightfully enough) sceptical of all the positive dots that would have to connect prove POET's success. How about we flip that on it's head and cast a sceptical eye on all the negative dots that would have to connect to "prove" POET's lack of potential? The way I see it all the following (unlikely) things would have to line up to shed significant doubt that genuine progress is being, and has been made.

1 - Peter Copetti would pretty much have had to bald face lied to the CIC group and shareholders. Sure you could write some of it off as misjudging the timing, but there would have to be at least a few full on lies in there as well.

2 - Ajit Manocha, a) has been misled about, or seriously misjudged the potential of the POET technology, or b) was short on cash and decided that the POET job was the best paycheque he could find.

3 - Tony Blevins. Either a) he is not from Apple and CC lied, b) was fired or left Apple under a cloud and his stature in the semi-conductor world is almost valueless, c) is moonlighting on a technical advisory board without knowledge or permission of anyone at Apple.

4 - Dr. Subhash Deshmukh. a) like Tony Blevins he was leaving or fired from a major semiconductor company under a cloud and his stature in the semi-conductor world was so diminished that a job at POET was all he could pick up, or b) was misled about the potential of POET technology and didn't have the smarts to see through the deception either or c) just needed a paycheque, any paycheque, and POET was the easiest and best option even though he knew they have no potential.

This is all also assuming that Dr Taylor, Stephane Gagnon and countless others on the POET team have also seriously misjudged and/or lied about the chances of the technology working the way it's supposed to.

Is it possible that all these unlikely dots connect? Theoretically, I suppose so, but at this stage I find the positive dots are much more realistic.

Jon