I KNOW that you were just reposting words from a blog that presumeably supports your position, but I have to laugh at the final statement:

"after Quanta no sophisticated customer would deal with a manufacturer who took a limited license."

This demonstrates a very weak understanding of contracting. As I have spouted for about two years, "no truly sophisticated customer would deal with anyone in the high tech (patent laden) environment without insisting on inclusion of a Patent Indemnification clause in the contract". Get needed components with no infringement cost risk. To simply not do business with a certain supplier with the most desireable product is not the best option, potentially hampering end product design (back to the drawing board). Now you may suggest that the supplier wouldn't include the clause (because of their limited license). But the only party that knows this is the supplier (who isn't going to reveal T&Cs of licensing agreements with prospective customers, i.e., the customer wouldn't know).

And that's the other huge flaw in this fellow's argument. How would that prospective customer know all the T&Cs of a licensing agreement acquired by their supplier?

They wouldn't. So what he's suggesting simply couldn't be done effectively.

JMHO,

SGE