Disagree- Boy you really are on your high horse with the "there are several flaws to your thinking". That pretty much says definitively that your perspective is correct and mine is not. Doesn't leave much room for a response that you will see has merit, but here goes. I was operating under the same assumption-that Fut at one time had indicated - I'll say- pretty strongly that he knew revenue recognition requirements would likely require that monies to be coming in in the future would necessarily need to be reported in the Q even if those were going to be received some time in the future. There was a back and forth about it and Fut replied that he thought it might be indicated in a footnote at the very least. Since those monies were not anywhere to be found, it was posted that - within the Q- paraphrasing from some semi-boilerplate disclaimer - "this area of accounting continues to be a very interpretive area" - or something to that effect. Long story short Fut was NOT 100% sure that monies that presumably would be made in installments going out in the future would NOT necessarily need to be reported in the April 9th Q and he said so. That pretty much changes everything and makes completely unnecessary all of the USPTO contingency theory scenarios that several here are hung up on. I don't believe that this USPTO ruling contingency is in fact ANY part of the settlement agreement. It would be too risky and I posted about this several weeks ago. Per product running royalties make all the sense in the world with no contingencies attached from where I stand. I am thoroughly convinced and am putting my money where my mouth is.