I feel that cocluding there wasn't a 40 engineer deal is a greater assumption that the alternative.

First it is quite clear from the CIC that gaining such a deal was the thinking in Feb 15. Milestones were being driven by an external force. Poof of manufactureabily was of an essenve for an unknown entity and suddenly a TRAB which included an Apple VP procurement was announced. There was also the involvement od Synopsis and the production of PDK - to whom were we transferring IP which at that time was PET as Optical was not the focus at that time.

There was a PC comment about the deal where he said that Agoracom members ringing Apple caused difficulties he had to explain,but to who? There is then the more hearsay reports re external enginneers presence at Stoors.

My point is Rainer is that that body of evidence needs an explanation. Was it a major failure of tye PET first strategy leading to a necessary pivoting of strategy towards optical and AOC or was it passing IP to a major R&D facility to develop a non competing product beyond PTI resources such as a processor or contoller for use in a Very Smart Phone.

I really don't think Ockham razer is helping us to conclude what's right or wrong and perhaps why you cannot accept that trasferring IP to a major R&D was key in allowing PTI to focus on the Star Prize in Optics.

You seem unable to give any wriggle room to this idea despite a body of evidence. There is however no proof that the deal went through I agree.

Sula