As I said before, you may be right as to nature of the payment structure, however, I don't think we've been told that at all, at least not in an unambiguous way. All the PR states is that the costs of licensing has made the "one time lump sum payment" too expensive. When you take that in the context that the ONLY OTHER publicly communicated offering was for an on-going royalty license structure, then the default translation is that if the companies have opted for future payments, it would be through that on-going royalty structure.

To arrive at the conclusion that you're directing us to, you have to read between the lines to something that hasn't been said, and in fact is in contradiction to what HAS been said.

That being said, I do think it's quite possible that your interpretation may be accurate. However, as owners of the company, management has a responsibility to explain it's revenue structure to us without ambiguity. While the PR COULD have been a place to do so, I think they chose not to, or failed in their attempt to. That's not a criticism simply an observation bourne out by the many interpretations already applied on the board over the last 2 days.

I expect that if you're interpretation is correct, we will see it in the next 10q (after this upcoming one), and EITHER WAY, I expect that RG will provide clarification and insight into what this "new" arrangment means. Not only because it's the company's responsibility, but because he should WANT to. There is NO STRENGTH or ADVANTAGE to be gained by ambiguity on this issue, IMO.