I should qualify this concession.

The AMD license (posted by Wolfy) appears to support your proposition (licensed product can flow to customers of AMD). The TPL/Alliacense statement also appears to support your proposition, but only to the degree of vulnerability of system suppliers to litigation.

However, I do not believe that this is what the MOU was about - if it was, just what would the MOU say? Are you suggesting that the MOU said that things would be agreed to be revisited had the LG/Quanta case turned out differently?

One thing that stood out as a result of the LG/Quanta case was the issue of the terminology used in a licensing agreement (in our case) with a chip supplier. It seems the SC concluded that if proper language were used expressing the intent that the license did not flow to the chip supplier's customers, those customers would still be on the hook.

We can see that the AMD license (with PTSC alone at that point) does not appear to express this intent. But we don't know the language to the agreements made by TPL with Intel, nor the agreements made by Alliacense with HP and other chip suppliers. And I believe that the TPL legal team, specifically with regard to the licensing of IP, was/is a lot sharper than the legal team used by PTSC prior to the partnership. Thus I believe there is a large possibility that proper language may have been used in all those other licensing agreements with chip suppliers limiting the "flow down" of the license to their customers.

FWIW, because the only way we'll ever KNOW answers here is if something profound were revealed. My other, earlier questions still stand, e.g., were any of our other licensees subsequent to the settlements with the Js, or subsequent to the LG/Quanta decision, exclusive users of chips supplied by Intel, HP, or another licensed chip supplier (note the exclusion of AMD this time! LOL)? Therein may lie the answer to the bigger question, or at least a hint.

SGE