IMO, there are several flaws to your thinking.

But first I again must point out a terminology error that just keeps repeating. People are referring to the Confidentiality Agreement as "the NDA". Different animals, though similar in many respects.

Now, could JW/the court have insisted on the CC?

While suppose there is a possibility of this, my first thought is that the CC was a condition of the settlement - a settlement constructed by the parties in dispute. I don't believe the Judge can direct the conditions of the settlement. Especially if that condition is in violation of other laws/regualtions.

I say that last bit because you suggest a royalty scheme. I believe that it has been posted (Fut?) that IF there were definite, absolute dollars coming (via royalties), accounting regs would necessitate reporting that there are definite/absolute monies coming, even though they may come in indefinite amounts, at indefinite times, based on an undisclosed basis for royalties calculation method. I have repeatedly requested confirmation of this. However, I do believe it to be true. The key is "definite". This is unlike a contingency scenario, where any money coming, or not, is not definite. It "depends" on something where the outcome is not absolutely known. Thus, no reporting requirement.

JMHOs,

SGE