I think you may have hit on the real reason why a total sale of POET is sought instead of the licensing approach.  In the previous CP OPEL was planning to design an OE interface and an IR sensor, each was to meet design specs for each respective vertical.

Well, that's just 2 verticals.  And also, the 12 people on the POET team would be stretched across these two projects, plus any SBIRs they picked up.

Of course for shareholders this could mean several more dilutive equity finance projects and further delays while cash is raised.  WE would also be going looking for new investors each time since all the usual sources would already be invested (and perhaps becoming impatient). All the while other competing technologies have the chance to mature.

Our new plan allows each vertical market leader to get exclusive rights to POET (hopefully at a hefty price) and to sic their engineers on the product they wish to develop.  This could happen across 3-5 markets simultaneously.  So while the licensing approach could theoretically make us much richer, it is also riskier based on the time it takes to complete.

From what Shepherd tells us, companies are dying to spend their cash on a *real* breakthrough technology, but they are reticent, having been burned in the past investing in technologies that have a very narrow scope and require 7-10 years to develop. POET is rare in that it is nearly completely developed and it has such broad applications to the point where no company in existence could hope to use it in all its potential markets.

IMO given POET's potential, the risk is very low *if* you are a big company and your mandate is to find and acquire new technologies both to use and to keep away from competitors.  Therefore the risk is also very low for retail investors who hope to realize significant gains in a very short timeframe.