I agree Tucks.

Reading this forum should come with the same warnings given for perspective investors in Venture Capital.

It really should not be necessary for seasoned posters to say IMHO as this applies to almost everything posted.  Dots are usually facts. The debate is about whether they join up.  This is what Intelligence Services do and is worthwhile even if flawed.  As far as I'm concerned this is the point of this forum in the absence of çompany communication and why posting here is addictive if not fraustrating, stressful at times but generally useful.

We're just knocking relevant ideas around.

For example, I'm just waiting for à valid explanation as to why the results of  18 months of work on completing  PET dissappeared without any conclusions being announced, yet a management structure, aTRAB, was created to control product prioritisation for two years thereafter  which included an APPLE VP of procurement.  How do these dots join up?

I get grief each time I raise this but it remains one of the biggest mysteries we have encountered here which potentially hints at a customer for POET IP and revenue from sale of IP and Royalites.  How can this possibly be proved given the relationship would be with the most insistantly secretive enitty in the business. How did PC got away with announcing the TRAB I don't know but it's recent closure means it existed for a significant period but to do what?  

I read Apple is investing heavily in developing  its own processor. Does anyone else remember those old MD&A diagrams of how POET  intgration benefits Smart phones.

Sula