It's getting really late, so I'm limiting my response to the language of RG's letter.
Certainly I could be wrong, but I'm an old Contracts guy. I have a tendency (usually) to write in a very deliberate fashion. I read things the same way.
"I will not, in the limited context of this letter, recount all the information contained in our April 9, 2008 earnings release, which fully reflects the financial results of all transactions announced prior to the end of January 2008."
That statement could be interpretted a multitude of ways, IMO.
Was the "granting" of a license a "transaction"?
Is the actual "transaction" with the Js something to "fall out" of the MOU - in the future?
If the "granting" of the license was in exchange (transaction) for acceptance to the terms of the MOU, was there a "financial result" (yet)?
Or it could be as some suggest, toward the negative.
But why the "end of January"? Could it be because those transactions were announced, but the money is contingent on a future event?
IMO, this is all coming down to "you either choose to believe one thing, or the other". And I think we're at a point where most people have dug in their heels one way or another.
I've posted my conjecture, and solicited discussion. I don't intend to bring it up again unless someone offers reasoned criticism of that conjecture - that is unless we get another juicy tid-bit (IMO) like the RIM PR.
And I don't intend to address the "Brian issue" again. I'm tired of it, and have said more than I needed to say/explain. Some may find it amusing that my middle name is, in fact, Brian.
SGE
