Once again, you fail to read.

DD, and the impressive DD that the board collectively does is by far the best I've ever seen for a company even much larger than POET with more more known of an investor base.

There is nothing wrong with dissecting NR's and looking for connections, checking Bloomberg/LinkedIn for updates, digging into partners or potential partners NR's (Alfalight, BAE, Synopsis, etc...). This is all potentially interesting dot-connecting but at the same time the vast majority of the time, there are just dots and they aren't actually connected. Many on here run with this as fact, and that is the issue and then intentionally or unintentionally spread this over and over on the board to the point where it becomes almost as if it is a sure thing or is indeed a done deal. How many times has Apple, Google, GF, IBM and many other companies been said to have already have deals in place with POET? This is going back over a year now easily. Where these inside sources or NY Executive team from a high level company, or a Boeing contact have turned into absolutely nothing? Where was the explanation from these folks? They disappear for a bit then resurface with their next claim.

I could say I’m absolutely certain that companies abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz have a deal in place or will have a deal in place with POET within the next year. When I whiff on 23-25 of them and was just taking out of my @$%, does that make it right? If I say I have inside sources who told me this, and then whiff and come up and name some other companies and say the exact same thing, is this okay?

In any case, I was trying to make a simple point that we need to read things more carefully and listen to those that correct something that is clearly being run with that is wrong. The licensing is the last example, the “#exciting” was for a completely different reason but still ridiculous, and there are countless more before then. There are many intelligent posters on here that understand the tech better than myself and the majority others on there. There are many intelligent posters on here that understand the AIF’s, legal terminology, etc… better than myself and the majority of others on there. I’m just saying when someone clearly breaks down what someone intentionally or unintentionally ran with that is incorrect, listen to them. Everyone likes to daydream and dream big, that’s fine, just don’t latch onto things that aren’t there to make yourself temporarily happy and in turn mislead the other readers.

Poet is handling that themselves strategically and effectively. We have a World Class team at the helm with a World Class scientist in GT behind them. We’ll be fine just stick to the facts and let them do their job.

<!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]-->