From your own posts:

First -

"From the above statement, I see no reason to believe there is anything other than an agreed license fee for both past and future use."

And then subsequently -

"That was then, this is now. The option and basis for spreading the license fee over several payments has been clearly given in the PR, it has become too expensive for some companies to make the full license fee payment immediately.

It is my very humble opinion that had there been any payments due on future usage the PR would have been worded much differently. I therefore see no ambiguity."

I'd offer two "very humble" comments in response.

1. I agree, the option and basis for multiple payments has been "clearly" given in the PR. The option is that TPL offers companies two royatly structures to choose from (one-time lump sum or ongoing - future- royalty payments), and the basis that might cause a choice of one option over the other is "the increasing rates of the MMP Licensing Program".

2. If things were so clear in the PR, your comments would not need an "opinion" qualification, not to mention that after all, you yourself contradict the idea that the future payments are NOT for future use.

Additionally, if we are ALL humble enough to allow that we quite possibly may not know something that hasn't been actually directly stated, we might consider that the wording of the PR does not in any way definitively state whether all three licenses are structured the same.

Based on the wording of the PR, it could well be that Harmon paid a one-time lump sum fee IN FULL upon licensing, and TPV and Textron chose the on-going royalty payment structure instead so as to avoid the large upfront expense of the one-time payment. That is quite in keeping with an outcome that "will result in both upfront and future payments."