The redaction was always there--this is the public version of what was a confidential filing in the ITC. The unredacted gets filed confidentially, with the requirement that a public version will also be filed with any confidential information redacted. The royalty wording is in the license agreement, and always was.

Here is what caused the confusion: Patent owners often put in running royalty numbers, so that if they need to prove in court what a "reasonable royalty" is (a legal burden for patent owners), they can try to do so by pointing to the royalty rate cited in the license. This isn't really working lately, but lawyers are creatures of habit in the extreme--if they've always done it this way, they always will, until there is a serious reason for them not to. Bottom line, both clauses were always there, but some posters here reasonably saw the royalty language and concluded that that was all there is, without realizing the lump-sum addendum expressly overrides the royalty and converts the document to a paid-up license.