Has it occurred to anyone else that perhaps Sony had incorporated a Patent Indemnification Clause in a majority of their chip purchase orders? This would easily explain a lesser licensing fee for past infringement. Perhaps they started including the clause in the late 1990s as part of their standard terms and conditions (i.e., a set of clauses that are included in all contracts as a matter of corporate policy). This would also mean that, with a stated intent to maintain this policy, that they, Sony, would not be accountable for any future infringement - the burden would be borne by their supplier. We're undoubtedly going to be encountering this frequently, and we (PTSC/TPL) would have no way of knowing whether the companies put on notice have used this clause or not until they advise us/prove it. In the case of Sony, I suspect TPL would know if they used the clause based on their prior dealings. So the focus should be placed on the chip makers/suppliers. They have nowhere to hide. If the profitted from infringement, they are on the hook. No worries, there are a lot of them out there, plus of course the less sophisticated (contracting wise) CE companies that didn't include the clause in their orders. So much for all the consiracy/shading deals theories regarding Sony, as I suspect the above explains it. But I KNOW nuttin'! SGE