Replies to post #131715 on Lightwave Logic Inc (LWLG)

[tedpeele]

104965 Kerrisdale:

Look, we're not going to play semantic games. The initial claim we made was that LWLG is using the term "yields" coyly. You decided that it was a reference to wafer yields, which may or may not be the case. You also seem to have decided that this assessment was after the poling step, which we don't think is the case.

Finally, functionality and consistency of results are not completely decoupled from wafer yield, but they are not necessarily related. That's because of the poling step in this case, without which an assessment of functionality and consistency is - in our view - useless

104970 Kerrisdale:

1. Kerrisdale has stated that even if the technology can be commercialized, it's insignificant.

To be clear, we've made both arguments: We don't think the technology can be commercialized. We also think that even if the technology could be commercialized, it will take years to get there, and that for the overwhelming majority of data transmission use cases, it will be insignificant. So yes, there are two sets of arguments there.

2. Why are Polariton, EPIC and ECOC excited about a technology which, even in the best case (i.e. it can be easily commercialized), is of no significance?

Everyone is excited about what they're working on, which explains why Polariton is excited. Why are scientists affiliated with EPIC and ECOC who have dedicated their entire careers to trying to advance polymer photonics excited about polymer photonics? We think the question answers itself.