It would be even more speculative for a California jury to decide whether Bayer and Barr would (or could) have settled on different terms that would have allowed for earlier generic entry. Simply put, there is no way that a jury could assess how a hypothetically different settlement negotiation would have unfolded, whether that negotiation would have succeeded, — whatthe terms of a different settlement structure would have been, and how those terms would or would not have benefited indirect purchasers of Cipro. (See Stare v. Tate (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 432, 440 [reversing as “based solely on conjecture” the trial court’s finding that a party would have entered into a settlement agreement, and observing that “{sJettlement negotiations of the kind that were had betweenthe parties are usually nothing but a high stake[s] game of poker’”].) Plaintiffs cannot cherry-pick between the parts of the Cipro Settlement they like and the parts that they do not, and then ask a jury to assume that Bayer and Barr would have agreed to that hypothetical alternative.