Am I reading that right...?
LG says that Intel's license only allows them to MANUFACTURE chips using their tech, but not SELL them...?
...And ayone who uses Intel chips has to pay LG for a license, too...?
So let's try a little thought experiment...
If LG,'s decorater, for example, used "Ralph Lauren(tm) 'Blue Mist(tm)'" (to pick a random name that sounds lnot entirely implausible) paint from Home Depot to decorate their US offices, then they would accept having to pay RL a license fee for using his intellectual property, as well as the bit of the cost of the paint that they paid to HD to cover THEIR license costs, as well?
Somehow, I have to doubt that they'd go for that sort of double-dipping when it was used on them.
I don't care WHICH one came up with this brainfart, can we lock all of LG's shysterrs and beancounters in a room with a cup of water and a stale felafel sandwich and wait to see who comes out alive at the end?