In a nut shell PC's up to August 2015 the operational focus for PTI was the production of PET. Whilst you and many others here have interpreted the current Op Plan, to produce VCSEL, as an about face and that VCSEK is the only thing that PTI is now about, I think this view rather neglects the other side of PTI's business plan i.e. that PTI is also a licensor of its IP which was the primary focus up to August 2015, why should work on that front have foundered I ask?

NDA and the security requirements of the big customer prevents further hints or announcements and therefore silence reigns, but has anyone thought that the big bang news that is likely to follow the road trip and launch the run to the NASDAQ may well be the fruition of PC's work in 2014/15.

VCSEL to my mind is win-win and very clever, because after the technical hitches of early 2015 the big customer would in all probability need evidence that PTI is capable of delivering a POET manufacturing process as the lab glitches would have increased any doubts the big customer had of PTI capablilty to manufacture POET. So our new CEO chose VCSEL to prove POET and as soon as PTI has the technical proof is availalbe for its big customer, the IP licensing will proceed, possibly with an exclusive deal, allowing PTI to separately manufacture and sell POET VCSEL - a win-win all the way to the bank with a proof of concept product and a first buyer of POET IP.

Surely, what PC was talking about to James West, alludes to the arrangements for the licensing of IP to a big customer. No one here has established that a potential deal, or arrangements for such a relationship with that big customer, have ended. In which case no one can deny the feasibility that at at this very moment it is entirely possible that the big customer is engaged developing designs of POET products using Synopsys software, prompted by the confidence of a successful BAE lab-to-fab initiative again unannounced due to NDA and awaiting a first prototype as confirmation for a deal. In which case would not your condemnation of PC's management as a failure be rather premature Cat?

You offer no other evidence of PC false promises apart from the West interview and I hope I have shown that there is an entirely different interpretation of that interview. Now I go along with Sir Hope-a-Lot and say that PC may be guilty of some over enthusiasm in his conversation with James West and certainly over timings, but please remembert that at the time of that interview PC had no idea of the down-line technical 'hiccups' at the lab or the need to transfer lab-to-fab to BAE, or indeed of the PINETREE nonsense in June, hence my comment for the need for the board to be more tolerant with the realities of the commercial conditions our management have to contend with.

I am sorry Orange Cat but you and the posse of PC haters are misguided and history will show PC to be a POET hero albeit an over-enthusiastic orator. He simply could not see the down line problems that were a major glitch to progress, remember the frustrating long silences that these caused, which I put down to our customers concerns and demands taking priority.

I find the tone of your 'many...many false promises' comment to be too near the mark and defamatory. There is simply no need to denigrate management so publically when there is an official means of removing them at the AGM and no excuse for damaging the good name of PIC at a critical time, which is surely counter productive to the best interest of our investment.

What DD are you enhancing by denigrating managment?

sula