I think it's entirely UNLIKELY, that TPL/PTSC let ANY of the J's off the hook without payment at the time of settlement or shortly thereafter (I believe it's customary that payments in court settlements are due within 30 days, or thereabouts).

According to my projection spreadsheet, if we were to count only licenses through the end of January, and compare that to the $27.9M collected in Q3, it would have left approx $22.7M to have come from the J's. There were 4 J licenses, two from companies with LARGE annual revenues (Toshiba at $45B, and Matsu at $77B) and two with relatively small annual revenues (JVC at $6M and NEC Elec of Am est. at $6M). So if you weight the remaining fees based on annual revenues, it would mean something like Matsu paid $13M, Toshiba paid $7.6M, and NEC & JVC paid about $1M each. So while I understand the sentiment, it's not as though they REALLY "gave the licenses away". Relatively speaking, they did compared to other licenses, but since we don't know the specifics of ANY license terms or how they factor them, and considering the 584 was potentially NOT part of this settlement, these may be perfectly normal fees for these particular infringers.

I don't necessarily believe that, as I don't think they would've taken them to court if they weren't expecting MORE than they got from Fujitsu, NEC the 1st, and Sony, so what I really believe is that there is a strategic reason TPL/PTSC settled rather than risk trial. I don't necessarily think it has to do with deferred or contingent monies, but rather bigger picture licensing and legal strategy. In the meantime, they were able to get some portoin of $27.9M from them to fund the continuing operations and get that expensive legal process off of their back.

Based on what RG has said,(and from my perspective these are things he didn't HAVE to say), the idea of contingent future money from THESE particular licensees is 99.9% a dead issue. I would entertain that the 584 might provide some additional money from these licensees in the future, because was a related issue to this case, but I really discount the USPTO contingency theory as it is a whole separate process and I see no reason for the court to be involved in it through the MOU as is being postulated. If the resolution WERE a contingent USPTO issue, then a simple new breach of contract for each individual J license would make more sense to me, rather than the court maintaining oversight. But that's my non-legal perspective, which I admit is limited. I put more weight into what RG says, then my legal interpretations.