While I don't know how applicable this truly could be, is it possible that TPL/PTSC cut a sweetheart deal with the J's with the understanding that the J's would provide muscle (ie leverage) to cause either their suppliers or their customers to license? Something to the effect that they have agreed to only utilize products from licensed companies? and/or to provide components and products to companies that purchase a license? This could represent a "non-financial" result perhaps, and also be "fully reporting" the results of the settlements, while leaving in place further reason for Judge Ward's enforcement of the MOU.

I'm grasping a bit, as I don't know that this makes any sense as it seems it would put the J's at a competitive disadvantage, but I would buy something along the lines that there could be other aspects to the settlements that represent non-financial results, that would end up with results that are ultimately NOT from the settlements/license agreements with the J's but attributable to other agreements down the road with other entities, thus making Goerner's clarification and the 10q not open to interpretation.

In reality, I don't give this much credence, but perhaps the idea will spark someone else's finite wisdom to think of something else that might be more plausible and not in seeming contradiction to the company's communication.