Ann: June 2018 Quarter Update, page-209

It's interesting you've mentioned ARM Holdings Green56FJ. MyASX used to cite them as an example of a company in whose footsteps BRN could follow, in terms of their licensing model, before he/she succumbed to the Dark Side. Here's a good blog post about their (ARM's) history , which touches upon the concept of IP blocks
https://community.arm.com/processors/b/blog/posts/a-brief-history-of-arm-part-1 .

"Microprocessors had become so small that they only occupied a small part of the chip, so the issue was how to build software-based systems on a single chip or system on chip (SoC) solutions..."

"...microprocessors were one of the first to use the IP license model and as a result, ARM was designed into more and more SoCs, especially in the explosively growing cell-phone market where ARM had gradually become the de-facto standard."

"However, the ARM core was “hard IP” and its application to different technologies was a real problem. Arm needed to produce a synthesizable core that could be licensed to anyone without needing a technology-specific port of the core. In 2001 the ARM926EJ-S was announced. It was fully synthesizable with a 5 stage pipeline and an integrated MMU, as well as hardware support for Java acceleration and some DSP operations. It went on to be licensed by over 100 silicon vendors worldwide and has gone on to ship multiple billions of units."

Wiki says "unlike most traditional microprocessor suppliers, ...Arm only creates and licenses its technology as intellectual property (IP), rather than manufacturing and selling its own physical CPUs, GPUs, SoCs or microcontrollers. This model is similar to fellow British design houses... who have similarly been designing and licensing GPUs, CPUs, and SoCs, along with supplying tooling and various design and support services to their licensees."

What I don't understand, to be honest, is exactly what "designing IP" or "creating and licensing technology as IP" entails. Even though we've established it could mean providing logic/instruction sets (like the example Ryzie gave of customisable logic for a physical FPGA), the 3rd excerpt above seems to suggest it might, or can, extend to the design (but not the manufacturing) of a physical core too.  Sorry to keep ranting on about this... like Cyber at al. I'm pretty excited about the latest webinar, but I don't want to indulge any "pie in the sky" fantasies like I did when there was talk of NDAs with Qualcomm. I've asked Peter and will post if he replies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Holdings#Business_model
https://community.arm.com/processors/b/blog/posts/a-brief-history-of-arm-part-2