I'll come out of lurk mode to say just one thing in response to your thoughtful (thank you) post re: the specific words of the infamous Letter. That thing, which IMO must be considered in this discussion (though I failed to mention it in this recent discussion), consists of two words: "Confidentiality Clause". Throw that into the mix, and then consider a possible "intent to mislead". Suddenly not such a stretch, is it? And this not only applies to the settlement with the Js, but IMO the licenses in February. Is there any clarity as to what's going on there? IMO, in that area, we aren't possibly misled - we aren't led at all. Wide open to various conjecture. With this is mind, it is IMO hard to conclude that everything is as implied by those words at "surface level".

JMHO, and thank you again for the discussion. My thoughts are rightfully challenged by others, and thereby tested by me. Value.

SGE