That seems to be the million dollar question - whether the totality of the J2.5 settlement is included in the 10Q. Let me add to the confusion: the 10Q comment on recording revenue stated that before revenue could be recorded there had to be, among other things, "persuasive evidence of an arrangement" What the heck does that mean??? As we also know the PR on the settlement stated that the parties had "entered into a business resolution of their legal disputes" and the 10Q stated " The terms of the settlement included the grant ...of rights ... in the form of license agreements" The grant of rights in the form of license agreements - Is that a grant of a license or not??? Lets not forget RGs last letter which stated that the 10Q "fully reflects the financial results of all transactions announced prior to the end of January 2008." Clearly the J2.5 settlement was announced prior to January so if 10Q fully reflects the financial results of that settlement, that does not leave the door very open for more money coming from that transaction unless a future royalty payment is considered a separate financial result eventhough it stems from the same announcement? Common sense certainly dictates that more money is coming some how, some way. However, an argument could be made to the contrary, so who knows - not me.
