We've gone through LWLG's patents, and we don't think there's much there. We've seen a lot of people boasting about LWLG's patent portfolio, but it's worth noting that you can find plenty of individuals who have worked in optical or photonic sciences for 30 years that personally have patent portfolios 3-4x the size of LWLG's. Lebby himself in fact is listed on hundreds of patents.
The problem with patenting a poling method is that it's art, not science, and the process is not well-understood. If it were amenable to precise engineering, it would have been conquered by now. Some of the more thoughtful commenters on here (Richard LaRiv) have tried to imply that because some of our sources were last at Lightwave 11-12 months ago, we're not up to date on this. The problem is that the scientific community is a lot larger than just LWLG. There are many labs that are trying (and have been trying for years) to solve the problem. Do the members of this board think that somehow, improbably, LWLG secretly solved this problem in the last 11 months and no one else knows about it? Is that why Arista's Bechtolsheim is still calling polymers a lab phenomenon?
We really think it behooves the members of this board to think critically about the information they're consuming from Lightwave, and consider it in the context of all publicly available information, including much of the evidence that we've brought to light recently.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
