You make some pretty huge leaps in your thought process.

You again seem to forget what the LG/Quanta case is about. It's about being rewarded over and over for the same infringement to a point where the patent holder is unduly enriched. Now put your thinking cap on. TPL got what, $10M out of Intel? Would anyone in their right mind make the leap that the INTENT of that settlement was to cover all infringement at all tiers? In other words, is $10M an appropriate value for the infringement by Intel AND all of their customers?

Now look at the values we've received from second/third tier infringers that don't use Intel chips. And look at the advice some of our licensees, who produce chips, pass to their customers.

Now think about ARM and the '584. Why did they jump in? It's stated in court documents that it was because of patent indemnification clauses. But using your logic/discussion, there never was a need for those clauses. Please explain. Did you forget what you've "advised" in your prior posts?

Maybe I'm all mixed up and don't get it. If so, I apologize. But this is the result of circular logic being thrown around, IMO. Or possibly the result of the speaker erroneously assuming he's smarter than his audience, or that his audience has a very short memory. And I acknowledge that this works both ways.

SGE