I can confirm the contents of the conversation.

The way I remember the question put to PC was something like: "What is the worst case scenario for POET? Would it be that the POET technology would only occupy a niche market within the semi industry?"

Following some clarifying questions about what was meant by POET serving a niche market, PC responded by emphatically stating that "it isn't even [a plausible] scenario as a worst case."

I don't recall him offering an alternate "worst case" scenario of his own at the breakfast, but at the EC he did say that the worst would be if POET had to return to the trough for more R&D money. With $11M in the kitty, this is unlikely based on when he expects revenue to begin.

Now, some might point out that PC does rely heavily on LS and GT to interpret the potential impact of the technology and PC admitted that some aspects of POET goes over his head (welcome to the club). But what PC doesn't need interpreted is the interest from third parties. I feel that when PC speaks with such confidence it is a reflection of what potential partners are telling him under NDA, not just our company tech experts. If this was not the case, I highly doubt he would put his reputation on the line to get behind POET the way he has. The same can be said of others who have been hired since the company was restructured - many of whom left lucrative positions to get paid only with options - to help with the monetization strategy. These guys don't need to be told what POET can do. They come from the industry that POET is trying to penetrate. Remember too, that guys like Gagnon and DeSimone have been brought in specifically to collaborate with 3rd parties and to work on product development, respectively. It sounds to me like the 3rd parties are making it clear that they are interested in POET when the technical milestones are met.

Back to PC. The Midas Letter interview encourages us to look past the technical milestones towards deal signings. Chris continuously highlights the possibility that POET can’t be mass produced. I don't think anyone in the company, and under NDA, are seriously concerned with this, despite the fact of its inclusion in the 20F. I think CC feels like he is doing his duty to let potential investors know the risks, but in the process he is giving disproportionate weight to the possibility of scaling failure. After all, the same document mentions that POET is already in a NASA probe (which admittedly doesn't require mass production) and that BAE and POET already have a licensing structure in place for when they finally decide to execute a licensing agreement.

The fact that PC is looking far beyond the achievement of the technical milestones says to me that they don't deserve the attention they are getting from the Agora board today.