I can’t agree with your interpretation of the past Baba ‘re being labelled the antichrist etc’.  

I have several times made your point here that the said analyst, whose name we seem to have forgotten, turned out to be quite correct regarding the time and complications necessary to achieve the commercialisation process, but the fervour here was not about home spun commercialisation, it was about the GaAs technology it’s efficacy and its potential to disrupt, just as Mono stated.

Our expectations then were that the IP would be sold to a developer at a Pelligrino Price  Indeed at that time there was every reason to believe the management’s intention to sell had successfully attracted an interested party, The fruit company saga. I remain convinced that management thought they had a developer in the bag at that time and that we had sufficient evidence that they had.  It was only the arrival of the AM selected CEO Venkateson that swivelled strategic direction into commercialisation in house.  

What ails me about your post is that I regret It has the waggy finger tone of arrogance about it, the I was right and the rest of you wrong.  A tone you have avoided for quite some time with some very balanced leaders posted here.  So please retain the calmer view.  No one alone has been right and the debate and considered contribution of all here is what’s important, which after all is the whole point of sharing our views.  

The said commentator actively undermined POET to the extent that he was challenged by GT himself, we got angry. Yes, we were overexcited about the potential of significant gain, GREED, fanned by the Coppetti approach, but none of us to my memory thought then we were invested in a commercial production company at that point as you seem to suggest.  It was all about the IP and selling it.

sula