Ann: Upcoming release of shares subject to voluntary escrow, page-154

I wasnt satisfied with the answers, so I asked more:

1. You mentioned there are parameters influencing these discussions at present. I'm assuming these parameters you're referring to are based on the outcomes of the optimisation phase of the 200mm/40nm node that is due to be completed by the end of this month. Yes, I gather that this may be out of your control and especially the discussions that didn't eventuate to anything, however there has been no further updates on the packaged sample chips announcement from back in August 2018. I know it is all well and good that the first batch of them were sent out to various leading universities for research purposes; nonetheless, it did state in that same announcement 'additional chips were planned to be shipped to commercial partners once they engage to explore the possibility to work with Weebit's technology'. What was the feedback given on these chips from these potential commercial partners? which is actually crucial as you mentioned some discussions did not lead to anything.

No, these parameters are not based on the outcomes of the optimisation phase. These are the parameters relevant to the potential partner – like timing for the development/release of their next version of their product. Given there has been nothing definitive agreed as yet, we are not able to provide any further updates to the market.

2. The reason why I'm querying the above is from what I've learnt (I'm no expert in the field) is the semiconductor industry in particular the major foundries have put a lot of weight behind other new NVM technologies such as PCM and especially MRAM; are they deterrents to the successful adoption of Reram on a mass scale? as MRAM seems to have superior specifications in some key parameters such as data retention which I understand Weebit's Reram is only at room temperature for more than 10yrs where as MRAM's is around 125'C for up to 20yrs. Also, from what I understand Crossbar is considerably further ahead of Weebit in terms of commercialisation, however the use of silicon oxide is (I’m assuming) cheaper than silver, and therefore is Weebit's material cost advantage going to significantly triumph over Crossbar overall? I’m not sure if or how concerned management is about the competition landscape. I know Mr Hanoch has mentioned that there is room for multiple players in the Reram space but speed to market is also paramount, isn’t it?

ReRAM and MRAM are different technologies with different advantages and disadvantages. The key advantage of ReRAM is that itis much easier to produce. MRAM requires a complex and expensive process. MRAM is also currently limited to ~20nm and it seems like it will be extremely difficult to go below that, and if somehow it will be done, it will be even more expensive. MRAM has a higher endurance and that is why, despite the high cost, companies like Intel invest in it. There are many segments of the market which focus on cheaper and simpler manufacturing processes where MRAM is simply not an option. Regarding Crossbar, given they are a private company, it is very difficult to know exactly where they are up to. But yes, Silicon Oxide is the major competitive advantage for WBT, and that is part of the reason for being able to get where we are in such a short period of time compared to competitors.

3. With regards to the seed investors, is it absolutely correct that they have nil involvement in any aspect of the business, and therefore they do not have superior knowledge than any other regular investor concerning Weebit’s state of affairs?

That is 100% correct

4. In the recent Dr Nissan-Cohen’s consulting fees amendment announcement, it stated that this is for additional time to be applied by him for preparing the move to a production fab. I’m slightly confused as to whether this ‘production fab’ is still an offshoot of Leti or an actual manufacturer of memory?

An actual fabricator (not Leti)