Core element there being "to settle an anti-trust suit".

It's helpful to keep in mind that AT&T operated under anti-trust watch from 1917 through 1984, with the 1950s action being among the most significant.

It was also responsible for keeping AT&T out of the computing market, which meant that when AT&T created an operating system, it had something it couldn't sell, so it gave it away.

You may have heard of this, it was called "UNIX".

Didn't know that! That turned out well. To the innovators go the spoils.

The opposite, actually. This is about giving the spoils to everyone who didn't invent the transistor.

the spoils to everyone who innovated on the transistor.

That's what I meant. THose that generated the most value on the transistor, got the spoils - eg Fairchild, Intel, etc

Not necessarily, unless they also got patents on their innovations.

You're aware that it's possible to make money on an invention without patenting it. First to market advantage, a foothold in the market, continuing brand recognition as the go-to source for that product, a head start on the next round of innovation, increased sales across the industry as the product becomes more valuable to customers, increased sales of complementary products and services, etc.

Or just keeping it a trade secret, like WD-40.

That was a calculation, assuming that they would loose more in the suit than in opening up it's patents, this isn't the same at all, though it is a direct response to the question.