Earth Mountain almost there, page-522

I totally agree. EM makes the chip. AP designed it and makes it work. But at what point is the algorithm initialised in the chip? I am assuming that it comes from code embedded in the ASIC, and that is undoubtedly proprietary, but is it built in when EM get it or do they load it there? I presume it is. If not there then where and when? There is testing of the performance of the MEMS while it is being made in the FAB. This is being done via an automated prober on line. How interactive is the functionality of the algorithm housed in the ASIC with the physical drive logic of the pixels? Do you know this? Does anyone outside of the production team?

I suggest you read a few of my posts going back over the last decade to get a feel for my appreciation of the AP team. Those options are not my assumptions. I am pleased to hear what sounds like your endorsement of the AP team! However it seems to be at odds with your statements below.

I think you may have not correctly understood my comments. I was under the impression that someone - possibly one of the numerous knockers that frequent this site that I have on ignore - had said that EM could not make the chip work for AP, hence the delay. I answered that statement.

But you seem to be saying that:
"... I have . None can make it work. ..."
"... Bob,the real point is that EM cannot make it work. ..."

It may be that we are at cross purposes here, but it not I would like to hear any irrefutable evidence from you to confirm that EM cannot make a chip that 'works', given that the demo chip was a Gen-I chip made by EM.

I think@WallStChihuahua may have clarified this:

"... He's saying they can make the chip to the exact requirements of AKP but cannot make it sing. Only AKP can make it sing. ..."

If this is what you mean then I largely agree, as I have said repeatedly on this forum. It would be great to hear that AP has absolute control over the functionality of every one of the devices that EM manufactures, such that they will not work at all without AP's say so. That could be the case, and I would certainly hope it is the case. But I have not heard that spelled out by AP. What I hear is that there is a very close working relationship between the two parties. I also trust the team at AP to have ensured that they have a watertight agreement with EM and a clear, complete, and effective power over the use of their IP, and that it cannot be bypassed by additional IP developed by EM. That IP is at the heart of the DSR technique.