Replies to post #131775 on Lightwave Logic Inc (LWLG)

[XenaLives]

The epitome of B.S.ing...

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.

Wafers with no post poling yield are garbage, right???

[tedpeele]

105045: Kerrisdale's response to Richard's rebuttal:

Rich,
We've previously posted our point by point response to your point by point piece, and we haven't really seen much that demonstrates that we were wrong anywhere. We'll follow up with a discussion of datacom chips, but suffice it to say here that at the current time, direct-detect is still incredibly small even in that market. If you look at the array of Broadcom chips that are installed in datacom boxes, more than likely you're looking at a chip with a DSP. Our thesis is mostly straightforward, which is that:
1. We don't think polymer photonics can be commercialized
2. Even if it can, Lightwave is actually not at the forefront of polymer photonics and the stage of laboratory prototypes that it claims are actually not that different than what the industry is already using
3. Even if polymer photonics can be commercialized, it won't make a very big impact

It's really that simple.

Richard claimed Kerrisdale was lying about things and misleading people but he didn't seem to want to pinpoint specific items with details that one could easily check out. After a while he simply stopped addressing the issue for what he considered to be moral reasons.

When I directly and politely asked RIchard to point out a few of the lies specifically, he replied "Absolutely not". It would have been VERY helpful to investors to state which claims were lies or misleading - and then demonstrate his reasoning for that. It is unfortunate that he didn't do that.