Jock you say " Right now, they are the only industry player...

Jock you say " Right now, they are the only industry player giving even a hint of credibility here. And don't say IMEC do....we pay IMEC for a service".

That is completely ridiculous Jock....... the reputation of IMEC is a stake here, which is paramount to their long term existence. This is demonstrated in their reluctance to formally put their stamp of approval on our achievements, because the job is not yet done. Available lab time and resources is short supply. They 'triage' the projects that offer the best opportunities for advancement of technology. That is their main purpose / or purview of their existence. The fact they have moved other projects out and given 4DS the prime lab resources including specialist staff to get the job finished is an incredible sign of confidence in the technology and its importance to the industry.

If that is not credibility then I don't know what is. WD are a small bit player, and despite the NDA we have with them I am sure the amount of detailed information they receive is limited to a 'need to know basis'. Just remember 4DS has been extraordinarily secretive with their development, and is the main reason this 'credibility' you are trying so hard to find is not so apparent. My understanding is that even from the early days of the JDA , WD have been used only as a sounding board to help 4DS in forming a strategic plan / direction for targeting the technology. I would say that things are clearly moved on from that point. It is hard to imagine what WD could offer 4DS at this point.

I am still not convinced a licensing agreement with WD is a positive thing for 4DS. I think it weakens our position upon sale, as the purchaser will inherit a boarder that they may not want and may have an impact on the control they have in rolling the tech out to the broader market.