> OK, so Apple did appear willing to allow a third party to continue production.

You're referring to the wrong part of the story. Your quote talks about the prospects of Apple supporting the chip and mentions the requirement for a transfer of P.A.Semi's Power Architecture license (obtained from IBM) from P.A.Semi to Apple, not from Apple to someone else. So, this has nothing to do with what would happen to the PA6T after Apple.
The part I was referring to is this:

"The letter suggests Apple will explore selling the designs to a third party after that time."

As soon as Apple sells the chip, there wouldn't be any need for them to be "willing to supply the chip on an end-of-life basis" anymore.

> That qualifier about the transferability of the IBM license is daunting.

You're misreading that part. It refers to what was said 3 months before ("At that time...") by P.A.Semi. When the article was written in July 2008 the acquisition was already accomplished. And the fact that the PA6T started being produced again proves that P.A.Semi's Power Architecture license could successfully be transferred to Apple. I don't see a reason why this license couldn't be transferred from Apple to the PA6T's new owner (should there ever be any), then.

> Its a pity no existing company with an IBM license offered to continue manufacture.

As I said, history has proven that this license is transferable, so the new owner wouldn't be required to have one beforehand. Second, we don't really know if Apple is still having the chip manufactured or not. Third, we don't know if there's any negotiation between Apple and a potential new owner already going on.