Agreed, it appears that the contract language (that I'm sure we're using as evidenced by the warnings by licensees to their subs) may protect our rights to go after subs of past licensees - and into the future.

The alternative approaches I suggest (focusing on 2nd tier only, or declaring past licenses with chip manufacturers void as the understood intent of the contracts cannot now be met) can be considered fall-back approaches should the desired approach not be successful.

IMO, this means that either our situation is unchanged, or that our approach must be altered to some degree but with very little (IMO) detrimental impact over the long haul. Not a bad position to be in, at all. We're good to go, or we're good to go!

JMHOs,

SGE