"While people seem to be applying the "upfront AND future payments" language to ALL THREE licenses, there's nothing in the PR that states that all three licenses are structured the same."

Which brings up the question of why this was a 'bundling' announcement. Is there mere coincidence in the fact that the first PR that includes multiple signings also happens to be the first PR that includes future payments? We continue to run interference as to the licensing amounts/negotations it appears, which is not necessarily an issue.

We will know eventually what the basis of the future payments is however, because in the Q's they will list a 'receivable' if the license amount is a lump sum with payments extended over time. If the basis is something other than that, I would not look for a 'receivable', but perhaps a notation to the effect that some license revenue will be recognized in the more traditional royalty sense.