Perhaps they settled to cover infringements outside the pervue of the clause being included in a contract with ARM, e.g.:
- Chips provided by other suppliers
- Chips produced in-house
- Chips procured from ARM where the specific contracts did not include the clause (remember, it`s on a contract by contract basis - they could elect to pay more and include in some instances and not in others. Why would they do that? Because each project has an assigned budget, and perhaps the budget for some efforts would not accommodate the extra cost of including this clause.).
This I see as another plus, because the settlement with Fujitsu was NOT that huge. This may explain it - that settlement may have only covered those cases where Fujitsu did not have coverage via the clause. And in those cases, ARM is further on the hook. Remember, the supplier (ARM) is liable for all damages (or up to a contractually specified limit) if the clause is included; and the supplier (ARM) essentailly SHARES the liability with its customer (Fujitsu) if the clause is not included.
This whole happenstance may be the case(s) for the J-3. There may be a ``mixture`` of pertinent contracts, some containing the clause, some not. Thus, the J-3 remains on the hook for instances where the clause is not included, plus those instances where they used chips from suppliers other than ARM.
You gotta keep in mind that, in the private sector, there is no ``blanket`` use of this clause. Sometimes it`s in, sometimes it`s not; and for a myriad of reasons usually breaking down to one issue - cost versus budget versus RISK.
SGE
