The policy that PTI is to become a commercial company manufacturing POET VCSEL cables focsed at the datacentre market vertical as its first product, is just about 45 or so days old. Until 30 Sep 15, PTI was focused since March 2014 as a company developing and selling POET Intellectual Property, which clearly still remains as a major component of PTI's business strategy today as stated in the briefing materiel. What circumstance have allowed this change infocus and why suddenly do we find ourselfes apparently commiting the bulk of PTI resources to VCSEL?

My mantra here has been to emphasise that the IP side of PTI business strategy is alive and well. I remain optimistic and hopeful that an eighteen month relationship exists with a customer who will licence POET technology to produce the products it desires for the markets it inhabits in line with PTI original focus. This hope recieved a boost yesterday thanks to Micheal Whites's statement to Rainer re Tony Blevin and TRAB meetings.

That relationship clearly would have involved the cooperative participation of two technological leaders, BAE and Synosys. Yet we can only guess what the extent of the cooperation with BAE and Synopsys amounted to and the exact nature of the relationship with the customer who was defining Milestones during 2014/15 for commercial reasons. THese factors I feel were deliberately not mentioned in the Operational Briefing of 30 Sep 15. WHich makes me suspicioous but is as it should be if a proper commercial relationshop is to exist between the two parties where the interests of the customer are parmount and clearly security is vital.

The notion that our interest as retail investors is best served by remaing silent has been raised here, but I tend to believe that once the genie is out of the bottle... well you know the rest of the story. but for me once its out there its out there sobeit.

The very mention of Tony Blevin and the internal structrure that is the TRAB at least demonstrates to me that the strand of Policy, licencing IP, is alive and well. By providing the necessary intellectual materiels to the Synosys process this would allow a customer to design and then build POET licenced products largely without a concentrated POET support at a fabrication facility of the customers choice. By doing this the company has effectively opened the opportunity for others to participate in the 'Paradign Shift'. This process would also have also been enhanced by a succesful lab to fab demonstration of the POET process and integrated POET toolset onone chip by BAE. As mentioned we have not been told otherwise and I also question whether the technolgy licensed is PET.

Think about this! has there been sufficient time for the Synopsys POET facility to develop? (Yes). Where have certain missing members of the old POET team been working? (they could be POET consultants at others' facilities managing transfer), Have there been any indications that this once heralded policy has been binned? (No).

Whilst it is entirely possible that several companies have taken the POET IP route for their products. For me the circumstances and revelations seem to indicate that there is infact only one company. PC once, in the same breath, taked about the desire for an exclusive deal as well as a forty engineer deal - could it be that this is the nature of the relationship we have with our big customer? - an exclusive deal! Would not such a deal allow the POET team to focus its limited resources on the photonic side of its business through VCSEL manufacturing, whilst the other IP devlopments went ahead with its first exclusive customer as a partner, was that not what PC was seeing during 2014/15.

If I may, I'll take this pipe-dream a stage further. If you were a large customer with a reputation for innovation and secrecy, with a pipe-line of pre-announced products, how and when would you fit your exclusive deal into the flow of the products you plan to produce. Time and great care would be needed to be taken so as not to allow business arrangements to leak (a little perhaps will, hence certain noises off), however, at some point the worm turns and they,our customer, would have to start getting their customer-base to salivate over what lies downline. Just maybe that day is approaching and PIC mangement knows it!

I get the sence that our mangement do know what's downline and their desire to propel this SP to NASDAQ levels by demonstrating the opportunity and making the commercial investment world aware of POET is but part of that. But, perhaps that exclusivity has certain potential penalties for PTI who reconginse that to be as inclusive and remain independant is n its best interests, hence the importance of VCSEL and its optical IP to mark out this independence from the exclusivity it has possibly given to one custormer. These are all sound strategic approaches to establish POET as a brand to my mind.

The Blevin effect lends weight to IP royalties downline and for me the above scenario fits neatly with the circumstances, I hope others agree.

sula