I wish this would be put to rest (wishful thinking??)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If his statement didn't say "growing"; in the PRESENT TENSE; I might wonder the same thing....

"Our strategy is to utilize our growing IP-related revenues and intellectual property assets to fund and expand our eVU(TM) dedicated portable entertainment system business into the medical industry and other segments of the travel and leisure industry."

Logic would suggest that using 'growing' in the present tense in this PR statement indicates that IP related revenues have and are growing as a result of this settlement.

If there was no $$$ from this settlement, then "growing" might be misleading, no?

The real answer to the question implied which true logic can not produce from the statement is in fact if this particular settlement is "grown" in size from the last, or if "growing" indicates the expected aggregate of all expected settlements.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The PR today provides the information, when read in full.

Two settlements so far. Today's settlement is part of actual, come to pass, settlements to date. Two settlements. Logic dictates if one settlement (already accepted to have a cash figure) plus an additional settlement (today, unknown figure) as reported was reported as part of a "growing IP-related revenue(s)" then in order to have an actual (as reported) "growth" in "IP-related revenue" today's "IP-related revenue" must be a figure which has caused the total "IP-related revenue" to date to have "grown".

In other words, there was a cash settlement of some undetermined amount.

What remains to be seen if if the phrase "growing IP-related revenues" means today's figure on its own is greater than the last settlement (one possible outcome of 'growing IP-related revenue' or if the 'growing IP-related revenue' phrase means (as I said) the expected sum total of all 184+ infringers (as to be determined).

In other words, with only TWO settlements so far, you can't have present reported 'growth' if the second (today) did not result in any additional income from the first.

$1.00 or $10,000,000.... now that is the question.

Either way, the PR said there was growth in IP related revenues with this setllement. How much remains to be seen.