This whole thing is ridiculously simple.
Intel CONTRACTUALLY licensed the invention at cost that ASSUMED
that down stream manufacturers would also be required to license as value was added.
INTEL is not a small mom and pop manufaturer that had no idea that
their customers would also be required to license the invention.
THAT IS WHY the JUSTICE was angry that the contract
was not written to protect the add on manufaturers
So this is to me simply a CONTRACT issue and not a legal one. WOULD teh court rule that "double dipping " is not allowed they shoudl also rule that the contracts be revisited and repriced.
Either Q. pays for the license as did every other down stream MFGR. or Intel needs to pay up on teh royalty rate to cover the downstream guys
Net net the inventor should ot suffer because the downstreamer did not validate whether the inventions used in his products were infinging.
Last I heard, if an ART DEALER ( expert) buys stolen art then he is as guilty as the person who stole it.
