Dash,

I think we are suggesting the same thing i.e. that managmemt are confident about another stream of revenue.

I'm not sure where you get the notion of illegality from my post, but I agree that I should have been clearer that I meant that the revenue source in question was a known future revenue.

I simply cannot see how else PTI would risk the cash pot to complete commercialisation. We do not hear much about financial planning apart from there being sufficient reserves for x number of quarters, but we can be quite sure that such a plan exists, in that finance is a major aspect of operational planning. At some point for the reasons you state, legality, the company will have to reveal the level of detail that will identify partners. We know the danger of getting ahead of ourselves here but one has to wonder whether the Town Hall Briefing (THB) is the moment of revelation of some of these facts. We both know that it is best to remain grounded on these matters but that rather defeats the fun of being part of this board's debate, by speculating based on known facts just what may be happening beneath the cloak of company annonimity.

Under PC we were made aware of his desire for a 40 engineer deal to develop PET. I have no experience how the services of a partner allocating 40 of his engineers to develop a POET product for their own use would be accounted for by PTI. But I can envisage, as perhaps PC did, that rather than an up-front NRE payment, the partner would take on the costs of development from which a mutual benefit would rise for both participants. I imagine that no accounting would have to appear in PTI books for this, clearly royalties would eventually been paid and be recorded revealing the source.

Knowing Apples need for secrecy, my theory has always been that the 40 engineer deal desribes Apple's relationship with PTI, with Tony Blevins as their principle liaison officer within PTI TRAB managment structure. Additionally, that all the early work that the company undertook developing PET with Synosys and BAE, PDK et al, potentially passed to Apple for the onwards development of products to meet Apple's commercial objectives. In other words they took over the development of PET which allowed PTI to complete the development of optical side (POET) of the equation which is where Dr Taylor's talent was heading in parallel with PET for a time and then disappered from the rader No other explanation has been offered here about Apple's involvement here and all notions of this remain secret it could have ended but the involvement has not been denied and any questions raised publically have been deftly nudged past the slips (a cricketing analogy) rather than stumped out and denied.

To come back to your point, I rather think you read too much into my post . Yes it would be illegal for PTI not to declare an income source, but then explain to me how Apple could possibly develop POET applications other than by the method I describe or we would have seen this arrangement reflected in the accounts. This plan was clearly in the CEO's mind as we learnt from from the City Investors Guild brief in eary 2015 until the arrival of SV came with his new strategy to steer the company towards optical based products. This change leave us with a missing link, there has to be an explanation about just what happened to all the PET work that had been the priority objective prior the CC of Sep 15 andthis board whilst mentioning the fruit company regulalry has not been able to dig deply to form a view. My guess is that this has been a PC and AM focus' since Sep 15. The results will have to emerge at some point possible at the THB.

I rather liked the recent post asking what was the purpose of Apple's investment in a new large Fabrication facility, I can obviously think of one at least one answer.

Finally my apologies for raisng this old chestnet of mine again. I have been rather avoiding repeating oing this but there appear to be many new menbers who may not have heard these notions and then my thoughts of possible future revenue streams must look at the question again - just what is the nature of our relationship with Apple? and when will we find out.

sula