How do you know the SC Quanta/LG/Intel decision hasn't hampered or harmed TPL's ability to license the MMP to the fullest..?? Especially when you take into consideration the license fees we received prior to the decision and what we have received since? Luckily the SC may have left a bit of a loop hole for specifically worded licensing contracts avoiding 'exhaustion' which allows some form of downstream licensing... I sure as h hope TPL is on top of this and is conducting business accordingly..

I wish you had brought this up prior to the ASM... it would have been a very appropriate question during Q&A....

Page 17:

LGE argues that there was no authorized sale here because the License Agreement does not permit Intel to sell its products for use in combination with non-Intel products to practice the LGE Patents. It cites General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Elec. Co., 304 U. S. 175 (1938), and General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Elec. Co., 305 U. S. 124 (1938), in which the manufacturer sold patented amplifiers for commercial use, thereby breaching a license that limited the buyer to selling the amplifiers for private and home use. The Court held that exhaustion did not apply because the manufacturer had no authority to sell the amplifiers for commercial use, and the manufacturer “could not convey to petitioner what both knew it was not authorized to sell.” General Talking Pictures, supra, at 181. LGE argues that the same principle applies here: Intel could not convey to Quanta what both knew it was not authorized to sell, i.e., the right to practice the patents with non-Intel parts.
LGE overlooks important aspects of the structure of theIntel-LGE transaction. Nothing in the License Agreement restricts Intel’s right to sell its microprocessors and chip-sets to purchasers who intend to combine them with non-Intel parts. It broadly permits Intel to “‘make, use, [or]sell’” products free of LGE’s patent claims. Brief for Petitioners 8 (quoting App. 154). To be sure, LGE did require Intel to give notice to its customers, including Quanta,that LGE had not licensed those customers to practice its patents. But neither party contends that Intel breached the agreement in that respect. Brief for Petitioners 9; Brief for Respondent 9. In any event, the provision requiring notice to Quanta appeared only in the Master Agreement, and LGE does not suggest that a breach of that agreement would constitute a breach of the License Agreement. Hence, Intel’s authority to sell its products embodying the LGE Patents was not conditioned on the notice or on Quanta’s decision to abide by LGE’s directions in that notice.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-937.pdf

.

jmo

..tho I would appreciate a more experienced legal mind to give their opinion on the matter