This echoes what I've suggested. But IMO the entire concern is "worked around" by just going after 2nd tier (not the chip manufacturers, but their customers - lots and lots of customers), which is appears to be what has been the primary focus for the last three years (at least 75% of our licensees have been what I refer to as 2nd tier, IMO).
But this argument has merit, the key being the "double dipping" aspect which I too have discussed (back when). And then there's the issue of the probability of the past licenses that were with chip manufacturers in the past (Intel and AMD, along with Sony, Fujitsu, HP, et al) may be having become "void" based on this ruling because the original intent of those licenses, which IMO is pretty darned clear, cannot be satisfied (as Milestone and I addressed yesterday).
The only flaw in Ron's argument IMO is determining the dollar threshold for when we have gotten "enough" or fair value. If Intel paid $20M, is that amount "fair value" for infringement by Intel AND all of Intel's customers? Of course I don't think it is, but the issue is debateable.
And of course there's the idea of just hitting future chip manufacturers for a premium to compensate for "downstream" infringement. And keep in mind that there are literally hundreds , if not thousands, of chip manufacturers out there.
Bottom line with ideas offered: this would appear to be "much ado about nothing". There are many openings and workarounds available, it would seem. And perhaps even some opportunities to "hit again" on early licensees who got the "first mover discount".
JMHOs,
SGE
