As I have said before, one of the reasons I believe there is much more to the 10Q then meets the eye is because of all the confusing, vague and ambiguous language used to describe the settlement. If it were just as simple as the Js got a good deal and we are not going to talk about it then IMO none of it would be necessary. The one, and I think only, sentence from the 10Q that directly talks about the terms of settlement is:

" The terms of the settlement included the grant ...of rights ... in the form of license agreements"

Very odd terminology for a simple settlement. To begin with, the word "included" makes it clear that there is much more to the settlement then just the "granting" of a license. As has been discussed many times, the use of the word "granting" is a quite unusual also given that every single other settlement announcement said the company in question "purchased a license." IMO this does mean that they have been given the right to temporarily use the license pending some other event. This opinion is bolstered by the other language "in the form of" a license agreement. That tells me it was not the same as an actual license but "the form of" a license. Again sounds like a temporary arrangement.

I stand by the theory that there are royalaties involved but exactly what has to happen to trigger or confirm it, I do not know. Sure would like to know.