<They state that the revenue recognition policy is to record revenue when a license is signed.>

As I stated in an earlier post, it is my opinion that TPL granted the rights to the MMP. It did not grant a licnese. The grant took the form of a license. If I am correct on this point, then Matsushita and Toshiba have not yet obtained a license (in the ordinary sense) and until something in the MOU happens, TPL has the ability to withdraw that grant. Why else use such a strange way of saying TPL granted a license as part of the settlement? Granting rights must be different from granting a license. IMHO Opty