B4 - Bingo! Since IMO payment is contingent on the re-exams, and success or failure is a complete unknown (indefinite), they didn't have to report anything.

I actually think that IMO the (5?) licensees in Feb were also contingency arrangements (the contracting precedent having been established with the Js), and that's why all the goofiness about that. The 10Q was REQUIRED to show monies received throughout the quarter. In the prior license deals, the license was the trigger for payment. If I'm correct, then no money was received from those Feb licensees. IMO, RG shrouded this with the wording of the Letter.

All these clues and conjecture were included in my "Current Attitude" series.

Milestone - no biggy; I jumped in and was probably out of context in some way, casuing the "struggle". BTW, I get the impression that your thoughts are fairly aligned with mine as depicted above.

JMHOs,

SGE