Now I should further qualify....
"So it continues to be reasonable to anticipate a PR based on the recent PACER."
This assumes that the settlement of the dispute between EDIG and SAKAR included a license.
Some have opined that this settlement may not have included a license or an exchange of funds (for various reasons, e.g., insignificant infringement). The lack of a PR suggests this to be an at-least-equal "reasonable assumption".
FWIW, and keepin' it real...
SGE
