IMO, if it were stated in the Licensing Agreement that the license is limited to use by Intel and that it does not flow to Intel customers (intent), I would think so. For a contract to be truly valid, there must be full and understood agreements by the parties as to the intent - there must be a "meeting of the minds". The lack of same can be an effective basis for a dispute.

This is why contracts are so full of "goo" - every stone must be turned over. That is, in a firm fixed price contract (as a licensing agreement, predominantly IMO, would be). Cost-plus and Time and Materials contracts can be far less detailed, allowing for "flux" in requirements without unknown/unexpected cost impact to either party.

FWIW,

SGE