No, Kane Kramer, the guy who “invented” the iPod, never even worked for Apple (AAPL). At least according to Apple legal, which used the British engineer’s now expired 1979 patents on an early MP3 player capable of an ASTONISHING 3.5 SECONDS OF AUDIO PLAYBACK to settle a patent-infringment suit brought against it by Burst. Apparently, Steve Jobs was willing to deny paternity–at least long enough to wring a settlement out of Burst. Kramer’s crude schematics (above) probably didn’t live up to his standards, anyway.

“I was up a ladder painting when I got the call from a lady with an American accent from Apple saying she was the head of legal affairs and that they wanted to acknowledge the work that I had done,” Kramer told the Daily Mail. “She said Apple would like me to come to California to talk to them. Then I had to make a deposition in front of a court stenographer and videographer at a lawyer’s office. The questioning by the Burst legal counsel there was tough, 10 hours of it. But I was happy to do it.”

Bringing an end to an often contentious legal battle that began about two years ago, Apple on Wednesday agreed to pay Burst.com $10 million to settle charges that it illegally incorporated the company’s audio and video-on-demand media delivery solutions into the iTunes ecosystem. In return, Burst agreed to grant Apple a nonexclusive license to its patent portfolio–with certain eyebrow-raising exceptions and caveats. The settlement specifically excludes from Apple’s license one issued and three pending Burst patents on digital video-recorder technology. But it also precludes Burst from suing Apple for any future infringement of the those patents. Now that’s an odd twist, isn’t it? Especially since a patent license is often little more than a covenant not to sue the licensee.

Why promise not to sue for infringement, but refuse to license? Why accept a settlement of just $10 million ($4.6 million after court and attorney fees), when a damages award might have been many, many times greater? And why announce the settlement of a bitter legal battle on the eve of the Thanksgiving holiday when so few people will pay attention to the news? Why do all that, unless there’s something more here? An acquisition in the works, perhaps. Or something else entirely.