I admit that the language in RG's letter is troubling. "...which fully reflects the financial results of all transactions announced prior to the end of January 2008." However, if the revenues have not been determined yet because they are subjec to an audit or are conditioned on some event (re-exam) then there may not be a "financial result" and/or it is not yet considered a "transaction" because the license rights have not kicked in and/or money has not yet been paid.

Again, compare it to the language on how revenue is recorded: "before revenue is recorded, there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement, the fee is fixed or determinable, collection is reasonably assured, and delivery to our customer has occurred." Lots of wiggle room there. I agree that if taken at face value, RG's comment seems to suggest that nothing more is coming, but then why not just say that, why use the vague wording that is subject to interpretation? Why not just say something like: "The settlement with the Js is complete and no further income is anticipated as a result of that settlement. We are sorry if the shareholders were expecting a larger settlement amount but the amount of the settlement was determined to be fair and reasonable under the circumstances." Who wanted such a strict NDA if that were the case - us? If you are saying that RG was trying to tell us no more money is coming then what is left to protect by the confidentiality? Of course I could be wrong but that doesnt make sense to me.