IMO a license agreement was required for practical purposes. If J3 paid an initial fee and was not "granted" the mmp, would their customers continue to purchase goods from them knowing that the j3 was not licensed to use the MMP? The PR's after the settlement stresses the importance of supply disruption. In order to avoid that the j3's required some form of a license agreement.

Unless something really unexpected happened i don't see any way that the J3 could have held enough clout to get away that easily. Either the J3 held the upper hand and TPL was forced to grant them the license in order to come out with some credibility and continue licensing the MMP or the J3 pointed out the the 584 was not resolved and the 336 was being examined and in fairness they shouldn't have to pay a cent until it was proven that both those patents were proven to be solid.

And w hat Goerner said was correct. If the ARM trial and USPTO ruling goes against TPL/PTSC the 10Q does include the full result of the december settlement.

If the above scenario is true then the question is why did TPL not go to trial instead of depending on a result that may or may not end up in their favor? I don't know. Maybe they thought the jury may rule against them, maybe they wanted to show the other companies they wanted to license that they were flexible, maybe they were planning a business deal with one of the defendents and they didn't want them totally pissed.

Now if TPL did settle for peanuts or nothing at all what could have happened to have caused that? There is solid evidence that the settlement should have been favorable to TPL/PTSC and unless someone comes up with a plausible theory why it shoudln't have been I will continue to believe that it was favorable.