I can't disagree with you about passing on your info. You have given this forum more than your fair share of all that is positive that has been posted here. No question about that.

You have also been more than willing to tear down anything that might put PTK in a negative light. Well done.

Tough for you to see me post anything without a claim that I was wrong about the royalties, isn't it. 

Truth is, I asked THE QUESTION about the royalty structure as a result of information I uncovered. 

You were wrong when you asserted "Just to expand this discussion a little more I would expect that the 5% royalty agreement may have been in place when the IP for the solar division was sold by OPL solar."

You were wrong again when you asserted "POET has a contract with UCONN which is separate from UCONN’s boiler plate guideline. The current royalty obligation from POET to UCONN is 5% as stated in the 2010 Pellegrino Report. This is the royalty that is currently under negotiations to reduce. POET owns all the rights to develop and license Taylor’s technology

(I don't blame you for that. That was CC getting his wires crossed.)

The truth was in the 20F "The Company is obligated to pay up to $1,000,000 per year when revenues reach certain milestones as well as pay an additional 30% of any sublicense revenue received for commercial, royalty bearing sublicenses of the licensed intellectual property to third parties. The Company and UConn are currently renegotiating the terms of this license."

You may have misunderstood what I was trying to clarify. Go back, check my question again. I was not insisting that UCONN was collecting 66%. Rather, I was questioning if there was evidence that the contract had been renegotiated down to 5%, which it had not.  

I wasn't wrong FJ. It was just a question. Do you need to admit something?