I am sure Samsung money is in the 10Q just published, and if it is not, the SEC would like to know...
The orginal pacer "agreement document" was filed in September (2Q), at the time the future cash inflow was likely "reasonably assured" and the amount (or price) was "determinable" for services "rendered"(prior IP use). In this case the revenue would be recognized when the "arrangement" became a done deal (September) and not (October) when the cash inflow released all claims.
The SEC has recently expressed public concern about revenue recognition problems because of the large number of issues that SEC registrants encounter, and the staff has added the topic to the staff accounting bulletin (SAB) series. On December 3, 1999, the SEC issued SAB 101, “Topic 13: Revenue Recognition and Topic 13A: Views on Selected Revenue Recognition Issues.”
SAB 101 emphasizes the two revenue recognition criteria: realized (or realizable) and earned. The SEC staff has also issued guidelines that the two criteria are met when all of the following criteria are established:
Persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists. (orig pacer document)
Delivery has occurred or services have been rendered. (we know the IP was used prior to October and prior to the agreement)
The seller’s price to the buyer is fixed or determinable. (once they agreed it was determinable)
Collectability is reasonably assured. (e.Digital/DM would have not asked the judge to delay proceedings in September unless collectability was reasonably assured)
