Please read section 7, p9, including comment.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:rEFEMijr-LMJ:www.txed.uscourts.gov/Rules/GeneralOrders/1999/go99-02.pdf+http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/Rules/GeneralOrders/1999/go99-02.pdf&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

As to the S.C. case, Intel and AMD have licensed the MMP Portfolio as well as "system-level" producers.

http://www.alliacense.com/Licensing_Program.aspx

The argument therefore is about double-charging for the same licensed product, "Why should we, as system-level producers, have to pay for Intel/AMD chips that have already been licensed?"

The counter is, "The manufacturers were only licensed to make/sell the products, free of per unit royalties. The royalty premium therefore rests with the system-level producer. There is no double, or any other multiple, charging. "

For the S.C. to find for Quanta, it could necessitate renegotiation of the original licenses so that the manufacturers had to pay a per unit cost over and above that already paid for the license. This would lead to problems of past production, current contracts etc.

Be well