You say: "They would not only have to pay PTSC, but they may also have to reimburse all of the people that they sold licenses to, or risk a great being sued. Thats one delicate balancing act." Being sued for what? Reimburse for what? Can't get to 'em probably, but recall my posts re: Patent Indemnification Clauses. Arm won't be liable for anything to those they supplied if there was no Patent Indemnification Clause in the purchase order/contract. We now KNOW that the J3 included this clause in at least some of their contracts with ARM. As I explained in my posts, this clause is typically OPTIONAL for inclusion in the contract, for a premium. You want it? You pay more for the product. You don't want it (and the protection it brings), then you suffer the potential consequences (and can't come back on us). It's a RISK decision. If there's no apparent risk, then forego the "insurance" (or buy it elsewhere) of the clause. Unknown potential risk, then pay a little extra and include the clause. I cannot see where a ARM customer could sue ARM for selling them a product where they opted out of including a Patent Indemnification Clause. To further clarify: TPL a can go after the an infringing customer and if no clause, liability will be born by both the customer and ARM, either independently or together (as is transpiring with the J3). However, ARM would in no way be liable to the customer sans the magic clause. These things I'm pretty darned sure of (i.e., I think I KNOW). SGE