That quoted statement does appear confusing.

The first bullet makes sense, and would make more sense if it had a couple of words added thus: "Since modern systems contain many brands of microprocessors from multiple parts vendors, system manufacturers would remain exposed until all their parts vendors obtained licenses."

The second bullet can be really confusing, depending on your interpretation of THE WORDS. Repeated for convenience: "The MMP Portfolio Licensing Program therefore focuses licensing requirements and royalty collection on the finished "system-level" product. A royalty-free MMP Portfolio license is also available to manufacturers of chips and other unfinished goods." The first sentence makes sense. The second sentence doesn't (or lacks clarity) for two reasons. The word "royalty", as we've learned, can mean a one-time payment (a la Licensing Fee) or periodic payments over time. Thus, a "royalty free" license could be FREE, or they could intend a Licensing Fee only and no ongoing payments over time (likely the case). Confusing! The other thing that appears counter-intuitive is the stating that, in either interpretation of the foregoing, that they would not impose ongoing royalties on manufacturers of chips. It would seem that this would be the most advantageous place to demand ongoing royalties ASSUMING there is concern about the ability to hit the customers of those manufacturers for a license.

I still intend to go through that AMD agreement with more focused attention. I seem to be suffering from ADD here lately, as may be noted in my recent posts and apparent flip-flopping. Too many things happening on the home front, including another close friend stricken with cancer (terminal this time, most likely). It's amazing how such serious distractions affect the brain. I hope to be back here later with better input re: the AMD deal.

SGE