Perhaps not settlements, but they are considered licensees.

http://www.ptsc.com/corporate/index.asp

I actually believe that the comment was that Intel and AMD were not licensed/did not settle via Alliacense. They've also skirted the Intel and AMD licenses/settlements by using timeframes, like "in the last 18 months".

But I'll add that if they were not settlements (license given, consideration paid), then what were they? If they were not specifically identified as "settlements" in associated legal documents, they did execute documents/contracts demonstrating the same intent. And as you KNOW, it's the mutually understood and agreed intent that matters.

An aside:

Not long ago, I was assisting some friends dealing with the passing of their Mother and the associated estate. On her death bed, she wished to amend her living trust. Details were heard by three witnesses, and written down by one. The one writing it down (the Successor Trustee) was not legally astute, and erred in some terminology (e.g., titled the page "Amendments to Will"), but the intent was sufficiently clear to enable the Mother and the witnesses to sign the paper (one page). A Notary witnessed the application of signatures and acted accordingly. Later, the estate attorney declared that the amendments were not binding, because when documenting the desired, witnessed changes "they didn't use the right form". I suggested they fire that attorney, as the key was the intent, not the format of the piece of paper or the title assigned. Same principle here. What makes a contract? A declared mutually understood and agreed intent.

FWIW,

SGE