Andrea, a formal association of shareholders to do the kind of things you envision is a legal nightmare. First, most here probably don't own their shares in their names, rather likely in street name, in the name of the brokerage they use. Right there, that puts a level of complexity on things that is difficult to overcome.

Next, people buy and sell, they are in and out, all the time, so when association reps would go to the company and say they have the right to vote shares, the company may well ignore them, as proving legal standing would be problematic at best.

Also, have you noticed how everyone seemed to be hot for the idea and have now cooled off? It shows the amount of sway that folks like yourself, Rob, fairchij and oogee have on posters, and I assume lurkers as well. It's human nature to rally around someone that people feel has superior knowledge/ability, but it's also dangerous when dealing with a speculative investment, into which it appears that some have put a huge percentage of their stock portfolio, not to mention net worth. That can also be a scary circumstance, notwithstanding admonisions of "do you own due diligence." People rely on leaders, and there's no practical way for most on this board to ever know the tech behind POET nearly as well as the leaders and a handful of others.

Having said all that, I think it's a possibility to do something like the following: when Rob tallies up the share count, I suppose a message to management could be sent that this board represents, on a revolving basis, something like X% of the outstanding shares of the Company, and that the leaders of this board can help management by holding discussions of those issues that come to a vote of shareholders in the hopes of representing a fairly monolithic block when it comes to the actual vote on those issues. If "X" is a large enough number, and a high percentage of X can be delivered on an issue, management may well take notice.

And even the above is fraught with problems. Let's suppose a votable issue is discussed here, and certain people are instrumental in convincing the mass of people here to go this or that way on the issue, and that way turns out poorly - omigod, watch out for litigious people in that situation.

A further problem, as has been mentioned, and as Rob highlighted effectively, is regardless of in what manner we might approach management to tell them of this informal association of shareholders, management will look askance at the arrangement. They will understand that irrespective of the intention of forming the association to "help" management, the association can be used to oppose management. It's one thing to have a bunch of professional money managers, funds, etc., to tangle with, as they have experience and know how the game is played (and what games are played!), but to have a bunch of business neophytes (not tech neophytes, but business neophytes) to deal with would appear daunting and disquieting to management.

Lastly, while we have a rapidly increasing share price, and infinite potential, we apparently haven't proven enough yet to be truly successful. Many here appear to take that as a foregone conclusion - that's dangerous thinking. Oftentimes excessive due diligence, especially coupled with confirmation in the form of message boards with sharp people, can leave one with a feeling of certainty, which is certainly unwarranted. Happens all the time. But if POET can succeed and draw a take out offer, then I see some benefits to concerted action that may well outweigh the risks.