The point of the post you responded to is that your 3 possible explanations are NOT the only possible explanations. There are many.

Secondly, while you quote my paraphrasing, what you fail to respond to are some of my previous posts to you as to WHY, RG, in his first post financial filing comments would communicate in a way that the casual reader, the interested reader, and the totally engaged reader would assume that he meant that FULLY REFLECTED would include all of the money's coming from the J's since he specifically mentioned all transactions announced before the end of January. Even you would have to admit I hope, that his wording was fairly direct and specific. Naturally, we would have expected more from the J's and understand the legal filings included and MOU, etc. Why then would RG have seemed to have gone out of his way to characterize the results as anything BUT what you have implied.

Lastly, while my spreadsheet numbers were wrong overall, if you do take the historical average of fees collected to annual revenues earned by the licensees, it STILL leaves over $22M to have come from the 4 J's licenses. While you keep saying nothing, or next to nothing, and even that it's an overall net loss, that isn't supported by over $27M being collected in the last quarter from EXCEPT for the J's, relatively small companies. Nor have I heard Brian, or BaNosser, say nothing or next to nothing or a net loss. Even with ALL of the $16.3 M in expenses for the year, $22M leaves them a net gain, and $33M in expenses over the history of MMP licensing when you take in to account Sony, Fujitsu and NEC (the first), they received way more than it cost to sign everyone.

As for the RIMM announcement, as I pointed out earlier, this week, the language used isn't that different form that used in the Seiko release. That being said, consideirng the Feb licenses weren't included in the 10q, and the language used in the RIMM license release, there definitely appears to be something changing as far as the license structures.

So I don't rule OUT completely your theories, but again, RG, in his first opportunity to communicate directly about the results, was very specific and strong in his wording. A man of his experience would know that that wording would be taken seriously and at face value. If there were other terms and conditions, or contingent monies, WHY would he have been so bold and direct in his language. Why WOULDN'T he have left himself wiggle room so as not to be liable for charges of misleading investors. Ambiguitiy in language from RG would have been the sensible and proper route to support your theories, and it was missing. WHY do you think that is?