If they are truly being pulled along by demand as is indicated the balanced approach to exclusivity would be to say No. If they are working with multiple foundries as indicated, how can you even consider agreeing to exclusivity. I would be interested to hear thoughts on what would comprise a balanced approach?
My thoughts on exclusivity is that for some of the potential verticals outside their targeted markets they do not have the resources to focus on now, they could offer an exclusive tech transfer agreement with a company they consider to be most likely to dominate in that vertical, and provide them an exclusivity ramp-up period, such as a 1 to 2 year headstart in a vertical we cannot give resources to.
For those within their target markets they should tread very carefully in even giving consideratino to exclusivity, because an exclusivity agreement closes the door to any potential winner takes all, where you could drive a disruptive shift within the industry as a whole, because your succeeded in influencing the roadmap and everyone want to follow it to stay competitive.
Exclusivity response should be "the sooner you sign an agreement, the more of a head start you will have. Here's a pen"
Perhaps if they know that any new foundry will take a 9 month or 1 year ramp-up within the engagement and there is a natural period of time to get them enabled, then an exclusivity period could be considered to cover a natural ramp-up time to the later movers.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
