True, we don't know what was in those contracts/licensing agreements. However, to assume that there wasn't at least a valient attempt by our legal team(s) to include the strongest language possible to assure that the intent was clear that the license only covered the parties to the agreement would be to assume that these patent attorneys, skilled in the art, were completely inept and unaware of the concept of patent exhaustion, though patent law in this regard is long-standing.

I actually believe that RG's language here was more about susceptability to dispute (i.e., focusing on 2nd teir users rather than chip manufacturers inherently limits susceptability to disputes with would-be future licensees).

Again the question comes to mind: Have licensees since the settlement with the J2.5 or, even more relevant, licensees since the LG/Quanta decision been users of chips manufactured solely by companies who have not acquired an MMP license?

I think you and I are on the same page - just furthering the discussion....

SGE