<The terms of the settlement included the grant by TPL of rights under the Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio to NEC Electronics America, Toshiba, Matsushita and JVC and their respective subsidiaries in the form of license agreements.>

Is there any reason that they couldn't have said the same thing in terms that are clear and simple? Why go through the trouble of making the statement so convoluted? What difference does it make how this is worded if it all boils down to what the Js paid for the licenses, and that information was not disclosed?

And a point which just caught my eye. I would think that the statement should have said that TPL granted rights TO the MMP , rather than UNDER the MMP. I know what the former means, but not too sure about the latter. If only to avoid two tos being so close together, why not change the sentance structure? I'm assuming much deliberation and thought went into the preperation.

So why does it sound like garbally-gook? Inquiring minds want to know. Opty