As far as licensing strategy, if more/all 2nd/3rd tier users of our tech secure patent indemnification clauses, that would IMO simply force our attention to 1st tier/original manufacturers (chip makers) who have no escape - and we would justifiably hit them much harder being our only remaining shot for capitalizing. But, as I mentioned before, if those 1st tier chip makers get an onslaught of requests for indemnification, they will charge for that indemnification accordingly to help offset the cost of a license encompassing all users. Thus, the decision would go back to the users - should we pay a one-time fee (or even ongoing royalties) for an MMP license from TPL/PTSC, or pay (probably for ever) a premium to our supplier for indemnification? Remember, a patent indemnification clause typically won't identify any specific patent(s) - it's a blanket clause. Once initiated, it may be difficult to remove in the future. So the patents you're really worried about could expire, but you're still paying for inclusion of the clause (though the clause would provide ongoing insurance protection for any other patent issues - unknown today - that could arise). I mentioned the word "insurance" in there - that's another option for users, to buy insurance. However, that IMO would be real pricey due to the "pre-existing condition". Hope that helps!

As for that last sentence you highlight - it makes zero sense to me. Even a one-time payment is considered a royalty (though I had considered it a licensing fee, and ongoing payments being royalty payments - but was shown to be wrong with that mindset). With that in mind, the statement makes no sense. However, since they're talking about chip manufacturers in that statement, I suspect their intent conforms to my old, proven-wrong mindset, and that they are suggesting that chip makers can pay a one-time licensing fee - avoiding ongoing royalty payments (which also suggests my old mindset was actually correct - or is at least shared by whoever wrote that statement!). IMO, this also suggests a license worded such that it only covers the manufacturer, and no flow-down to cover their customers. One thing I am pretty sure of - they don't mean "free" as in no money/consideration at all. The manufacturer is making money off the tech, so there would be an obvious expectation of compensation at some level.

All JMHOs, and I hope they are helpful.

SGE