LL..

I can see why Nikon would want to have the PR issued the way it was... assuming it was Nikon (which I agree makes sense as per the recent PACER.)

I was not sure of the flow of logic in the statement however

"EDIG says we are going to issue a PR and want to note your name. Nikon says no way. EDIG says can we negotiate down to $2.5 M (or maybe the numbers are $5m negotiated down to $4m) because it is worth that much in publicity to us. Nikon says no way and we want to make it part of the negotiated settlement that you can't use our name in a PR."

until I looked at it closely.. now I see the view.

You don't let us use your name, or indicate we cross-license, we want $ X more for 'confidentiality' ...at least until astute parties read the PACER and can deduce who (likely) settled....