I'll chime in here to say that I think the "distinction" Cautious may have been groping for was between "purchased licenses" and "granted licenses". I only say this because a "license agreement" would be a formal contract, just as a purchased license would be. Words....

Now, to Lambert's comments. While I don't want to suggest anything, necessarily, by asking this, but why to you think that $27M from 9 licensees is so unthinkable as to be possible?

I know you say based on their size/sales, but that's the only metric you are looking at, really. All of these licensees came either after the settlement in TX, or just before when it appeared that settlement or trial was imminent. The perception of the "threat" may have escalated significantly in the minds of those licensees, thus prompting them to pay "more than the average bear". Perhaps there was an increased fear of an injunction being successful? On top of this, throw in what we KNOW re: T3 - we demanded too much money in their opinion. Same timeframe when things came to a head.

With these things in mind, can you not fathom the possibility? $3m a pop, on average, from 9 licensees. Probable chump change, even to the smallest of those licensees, IMO, considering the possible negative ramifications they may have thought they faced.

For your consideration.

SGE