Jackthebear> As shareholders I think it is imperitive we hold the company accountable and praise them when appropriate,
As shareholders it is meaningless. As shareholders we are along for the ride. We ether believe in a positive outcome or we don’t. We ether recognise that they are making their way through a minefield to produce one the most significant achievements in the semiconductor industry or we don’t. We ether recognize that Peter is doing the best he can do and has made the right moves since becoming part of this company or not. He clearly recognizes that at this stage he is not the best guy for the job. But guess what he is also the guy who is going to make the final decision who the right person is. Based on what Ajit and the board advise him or have advised him he will only let go for the best possible CEO and I think we can all, each and every one of us recognize how important he has been in seeing this company move forward the way it has. Does anyone think for a moment that it has not taken extremely smart negotiations and strategic moves to avoid having this company taken out for a fraction of what it is worth? So we have the ability to measure the importance of the technology based on the people that are making a commitment to this company. The fundamental reason is of course the attraction these people see in this new technology. So would it not also make perfect sense that the reasons these high profile industry people are attracted to POET would be the same reason why companies within the industry would not take a run at POET. And why haven’t they done this? My thoughts are that given the capabilities of POET and the probabilities of success that have motivated the high level industry experts to join with POET there would certainly have been discussions around take out offers. I truly believe that it is the strength of people that are running POET and their capacity to make counter proposals that industry finds suitable that have kept this company from being sold off for a fraction of its potential real value.
Companies are gambling with $billions on technologies that may never prove successful and do not have a next step of development left. Depositing III-V material directly onto a silicon wafer to improve channel mobility will probably never be succeed to any degree where yield can become acceptable. So think about this. Why would companies be spending $billions of dollars on a solution that will probably never be cost effective and would only represent a final step in silicon and not spend money to buy POET whose technology has been developed over decades and could be considered a technology that is in its infancy and be compared to where silicon was in 1999 when they achieved 180nm. The final step for silicon is thought to be 5nm in 2020 but many doubt that will ever happen.
So the only conclusion I can come to is that Peter and company have done an excellent job within the industry to hang onto POET because I just don’t see any possible way that the companies POET has been dealing with would not just write a check for a fraction of what is being spent today on a silicon industry that may have reached its final state of widespread commercial development.
