David,

> No, that is not correct.  Delphi IS making money.

These are very good news.

> What he stated was that when they are paid for a Delphi license, the take all of that money

> as 'income' at the time that the sale was made, they don't take (for
> example) a portion of it each month over a period of time (as an
> accounting action).

If I understood Tony correctly the opposite happens cause of SA.

> Further, it appears that I misunderstood/misinterpreted earlier
> statements about how things are handled.  My interpretation was that
> with the advent of 'SOX legislation' that they were 'forced' to amortize
> their income -- it now appears (if I'm reading correctly this time) that
> they are NOT doing so,  but would HAVE to do so if certain types of
> disclosures were made.

What is the "advent of 'SOX legislation'"?

> Going back to my original argument, IF this takes place, it should only
> offset earning over a period of a year, and after that, income/earnings
> would stabilize.  Given that (sooner or later) SOME action will PROBABLY
> occur that would trigger this requirement, it would seem prudent that
> they move to an amortized accounting method sooner or later.  Once that
> is done, there shouldn't be any further problems (as far as accounting
> rules are concerned) preventing them from discussions of roadmaps, etc.

What can a "an amortized accounting method" be?


-- 
Roman