I was going to write an Occam's Razor/KISS methodology post, which is what your post put into practice, and once I saw your post I decided to throw something out here in cyberville. It is a much more logical explanation than contigent royalties based on a complex legal outcome. Hopefully people do not read into your post negativity regarding future revenue as that is most assuredly not your point. I believe you specifically pointed out in a post just yesterday that if the MMP can generate the same amount of revenue it has for the 1st 100 licenses for the 2nd 100 within a shorter period of time, the SP will surely appreciate. It isn't a question of betting on profitability, that seems to be the general consensus, it's about the reasonability of how the profitability is achieved. I personally do not think there are contingency clauses in the MMP licensing contracts dependent upon legal outcomes. I agree with Lamberts that the contigency is more than likely explainable via M&A activity.