If you can provide a link to or proof that the signed licenses all predated the MOU, I'd agree with you. However, my recollection was that we heard, after a couple of stays, that the parties had reached a "business resolution" that would settle the legal fight. We then saw a Pacer that included the reference to the MOU in the dismissal filings. There was no mention of the license agreements yet. My recollection was that the first reference of the license agreements was in a PR announcement a couple of license agreement later.

So in essence, the way I see it, the parties agreed that they would ALL settle, or that the case would continue, but that the individual license signings would take place after the fact. The MOU was drawn up to assure that these unrelated business entities (Matsu, JVC & Toshiba) would ALL be party to this scenario, and the case was dismissed, with the understanding that the court had this agreement to hold over thier heads that even if Toshiba licensed the MMP and would have then technically themselves NOT been open to infringement any longer, regardless of what Matsushita did, and thus not be able to be dragged back to court over it, in this case they would because of the MOU.

NEC is a different animal in my opinion, because TPL/PTSC already had a license agreement with NEC's parent company, so it's likely that there were parameters in place already with that entity that could easily be adapted to include NEC Electronics of America, similar in concept to when APC was easiliy signed when acquired by Schnieder.

If you can prove that all the license agreements were signed PRIOR to the dismissal and the MOU, then I'll concede. IMO, the court filings and PR announcements actually imply otherwise.