"Therefore, it is clear that license agreements/contracts were entered into, and that the licensed technolgy was provided through the granting of rights. Therefore, to comply with SEC rules and filings, the revenue has been recognized already, either as received or accruing. Nothing accruing, so revenue is received."

It is clear that the settlement included the granted use of the rights in the form of licence agreements (which could be anything). I wonder what else was included? It is not clear that we've entered into a contract and have provided the licensed technology. The J's could still be using their own infringing (but not identical) tech and not be breaking the law under this settlement. Maybe no more money coming from the J's from this settlement but if/when the USPTO re-validates, a contract will be entered into and the licensed tech will be provided. In the end everybody gets what they deserved. All IMHO

GLTAL