Check my edited wording. I took note of your comment and changed my word from "working" to "worked." I didn't mean to imply they were still working together, but they very well could be.
I posted nothing but a patent that references using QMC's qdots by Kateeva and recent articles related to Kateeva's applications of qdots. If you interpret that as misleading, your view point is skewed.
I'll ask my question again, why choose QMC's quantum dots for use in their patent application examples? There are dozens of quantum dot suppliers out there for sample quantities. Some of which have better commercial success by far than QMC. Why not Nanosys or Nanoco or Sigma Aldrich, etc?
Just because QMC hasn't come out to say were working with Kateeva, doesn't me they aren't. It doesn't mean they still are either, but before today, did you know they supplied Kateeva with anything?
You've been here for a long time and know that I try to be fairly balanced. I get excited as an investor of QMC from time to time and might air toward the optimistic side, but for the most part, I try to present logic and facts, do I not?
