But anyone ``downstream`` will look to their suppliers ``upstream`` for coverage. I think it doubtful to get double payment from the companies who do not make chips.

If I make a product with chips I get from you and PTSC comes to me saying that my product is infringing because of your chips, I would certainly be concerned but would not immediatly be negotiating or paying licencing fees.

I would be calling you to sort it out and cover me if what PTSC is saying is true. I would also be looking at the possibility of changing to a non-infringing chip. ( Which is possibly why AMD licensed...they did not want to lose customers to newly licensed Intel)

Further, I think we went after the J5 instead of Intel directly because of the ``multiple sources`` of violation,(the J5`s own chips, the Intel chips, and quite possibly chips from other manufacturers, yet unknown.)not because we thought we could get double the money for the same violating chip.

With 150 some odd letters out, AMD and Intel signed, the surprise to me is that we have not had, (at least to our knowledge) more manufacturers step forward to protect their customers. Maybe a wait and see the J5, now 4 before floodgates open? Fair license fee but recurring royalties...please. joe