First, you left off the "IMO" when I suggested there were flaws to your thinking. I could see you having a problem with that IF I had not gone on to point out what, IMO, those flaws might be. Had I simply said "you're wrong" and not offered some explanation, I could certainly see where you'd have a problem (so would I).
In any case, you make a very good argument for your position. It appears that it comes down to interpretation of accounting/reporting requirements. We need an expert! Is the requirement "cut and dry" in the regs in the context we're thinking? Are they addressing some other accounting/reporting nuance not necessarily relating to what you, or I, suggest (e.g., something to do with Holocom?)?
I will toss this out there. This language in the 10Q might suggest that there is something more from the Js, and others, than actually reflected in the 10Q. Be it a royalty thing, a contingency thing, or something we haven't even considered. I KNOW this has been tossed out there before by others (you perhaps?).
Good post.
SGE
