Didn't someone [cough, raises hand] point out that the settlement, such as it was, named specific Windows products that had to comply? Suggesting anything else was free to integrate/innovate whatever MS wanted it to.

Oh, and there was that whole go-round about Palladium being renamed, thought the actual aims of the project will be subsumed into other projects.

Microsoft is now at the point of asking what the definition of "is" is. Whether the next product "is" still Windows or "is" something else determines which parts of what settlement apply. This is why the settlement should never have referred to future, unreleased products by name.