[zinekeller]

> require that contracts have consideration from both parties.

Again (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33587891), this is a misconception. Unless there's something in the contract that is outright illegal, mutual consideration automatically binds parties into the contract, but the absence of it does not automatically voids the contract (see one-way NDAs between companies and promissory notes). Worse, you've confused consideration with a monetary value. Consideration don't need to be a monetary value: often, it's performance. This can get confusing because often contracts have a monetary consideration for a performance consideration (for example, paying for mowing the loan), but in this case it has been inverted: for not using it commercially (performance consideration) you can use the IP (monetary consideration).

[pclmulqdq]

I think the issue is that not using it commercially may not actually be consideration depending on how you frame it. Your last sentence could easily be reworded as: "in exchange for nothing, you get the right to use the IP non-commercially." This is definitely not an enforceable contract as constructed under any theory.

Courts haven't yet determined which construction is correct.

Edit: I will also add that I said "of value" not "of monetary value." Lots of things with value don't have well-defined monetary value.