I'm sorry Baba, but you've really got me confused with your post.
Thanks for the compliment, but I don't feel my opinion had changed at all regarding the licensing debate or that my latest post went against my viewpoint. Hence my confusion with your post.
Just to clarify, the license agreement mentioned in the news release of Feb 11, 2014 was the ammended agreement (originally 2003) between POET and UCONN where POET would pay UCONN the 3% of ammounts received from unaffiliated third parties with respect to the IP defined in the agreement.
This is no doubt what was referred to when they said the company had "licensed the intellectual property portfolio." POET had licensed the IP from UCONN at a drastically reduced rate in exchange for equity, as under Dr. Taylors contract as an employee of the school, UCONN was previously entitled to 30% of amounts received.
I just went back and read my response to you from yesterday. I guess maybe it could be misunderstood if skimmed quickly, but my intent when I wrote it was to express how extremely remote a possibility I felt it was that POET was licensing the IP to a third party who would then pay POET for that license. The use of questions was meant to soften the language and leave room for the viewpoint of others.
Again, thank you for the kind words and I hope this helps clarify my viewpoint.
Green.
