Arm says it wants all Snapdragon X Elite laptops destroyed(xda-developers.com)
xda-developers.com
Arm says it wants all Snapdragon X Elite laptops destroyed
https://www.xda-developers.com/arm-says-it-wants-all-snapdragon-x-elite-laptops-destroyed/
165 comments
You have described the ARM position in the case.
According to Qualcomm, they already have a separate architecture license from ARM that allows them to produce their own cores and sell them in whatever they want. And by their reading of that license, they can purchase the core IP they use for that from a third party, and then use it under their existing license.
According to Qualcomm, they already have a separate architecture license from ARM that allows them to produce their own cores and sell them in whatever they want. And by their reading of that license, they can purchase the core IP they use for that from a third party, and then use it under their existing license.
If Qualcomm wins, ARM will never make sweetheart deals for startups again.
From comments here, it sounds like if Qualcomm wins, the ARM/Nuvia deal isn't the problem, the ARM/Qualcomm one is. ARM probably already doesn't like to make broad licensing deals like that, but big customers like them, and ARM in the past couldn't afford to say no.
Good - drive them to invest in RISC-V instead.
> Apparently, ARM wants to push through a new licensing model to generate more revenue. The main aim is to base license costs on the price of the device rather than the processor. According to Qualcomm, this involves a one-off payment of several hundred million US dollars plus significantly higher license fees on an ongoing basis.
Interesting. That's what Qualcomm itself does, right?
Interesting. That's what Qualcomm itself does, right?
That is almost exactly how they usually do it, but they many times negotiate per company. However, it does look like ARM trying to have a redo on their contract that they have had in place for a very long time, now that ARM is more popular. When it was the cell manufactures that made it possible for ARM to be in the current position it is in precisely because of the terms ARM had in its contract years ago. Qcom may have a good case as they have put arm chips in computers before (omnitracs). ARM saying it has to be tied with a modem, and buying another company does a full reset on the existing contract may not go far.
so... if qcom included a "modem" on their server board would arm be happy? well not happy, but would it satisfy arms interpretation of the contract?
I could totally see every single server board saddled with some obsolete appendix of a cell baseband to satisfy the letter of some sweet contract qualcom had with arm saving the company a fair few million.
I could totally see every single server board saddled with some obsolete appendix of a cell baseband to satisfy the letter of some sweet contract qualcom had with arm saving the company a fair few million.
Possible. But more than likely they will meet in the middle and ARM will get something and QCOM will get something. But no where near what either is asking. But qcom does have a stronger position.
The story is poor, the conclusion maybe accurate in that it's likely a non-story:
> Qualcomm bought a company called Nuvia to do this, and it originally used Nuvia's architectural license. Arm's argument is that the Nuvia license was canceled when it was taken over by Qualcomm. A new deal would have to be negotiated if that holds up in court.
> So, there you have it. Arm wants Qualcomm to stop shipping the product it's been contesting, but to be honest, that's not usually how these things end. It's unlikely that any product will be delayed from hitting shelves. These cases tend to end with one company giving a bucket of cash to the other, and everyone moves on.
> Qualcomm bought a company called Nuvia to do this, and it originally used Nuvia's architectural license. Arm's argument is that the Nuvia license was canceled when it was taken over by Qualcomm. A new deal would have to be negotiated if that holds up in court.
> So, there you have it. Arm wants Qualcomm to stop shipping the product it's been contesting, but to be honest, that's not usually how these things end. It's unlikely that any product will be delayed from hitting shelves. These cases tend to end with one company giving a bucket of cash to the other, and everyone moves on.
Do you have a source not behind a "cookie wall"?
I remember Qualcomm making phone SoCs with custom cores some years back. Why is it suddenly an issue now? Or were those just rebrands of tweaked Cortex designs?
EDIT: From reading the Reuters article [0] it seems that Arm's argument is that since Nuvia's cores were developed under a now-terminated licence, Qualcomm doesn't have a right to use them, their other licences notwithstanding.
[0]: https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2024-06-10/a...
I remember Qualcomm making phone SoCs with custom cores some years back. Why is it suddenly an issue now? Or were those just rebrands of tweaked Cortex designs?
EDIT: From reading the Reuters article [0] it seems that Arm's argument is that since Nuvia's cores were developed under a now-terminated licence, Qualcomm doesn't have a right to use them, their other licences notwithstanding.
[0]: https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2024-06-10/a...
The argument is that Nuvia got a licence for server usage and development support from arm to develop custom arm processors.
Qualcom now wants to use technology developt under a specific licence agreement in use cases not covered in that licence agreement, because they have general licence agreement with arm.
The question is:
Does the general licence agreement from qualcom override the specific licence agreement between Nuvia and arm for this specific technology.
I found some sources which partially explains this:
https://www.ft.com/content/5535ce39-ab22-497a-a8d6-52a690d1b...
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/01/why-arms-lawsuit-against-qua...
(...Nuvia, a startup founded by former Apple and Google engineers, was developing a server chip with custom cores under an architecture license. It also had access to Arm’s core designs....)
Qualcom now wants to use technology developt under a specific licence agreement in use cases not covered in that licence agreement, because they have general licence agreement with arm.
The question is:
Does the general licence agreement from qualcom override the specific licence agreement between Nuvia and arm for this specific technology.
I found some sources which partially explains this:
https://www.ft.com/content/5535ce39-ab22-497a-a8d6-52a690d1b...
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/01/why-arms-lawsuit-against-qua...
(...Nuvia, a startup founded by former Apple and Google engineers, was developing a server chip with custom cores under an architecture license. It also had access to Arm’s core designs....)
I suspect it's going to boil down to whether any of the IP Nuvia had access to but Qualcomm did not made it into the cores. But it could also easily come down to some details of the wording of the contracts in terms of how that license is granted. Either way, this request for the destruction of laptops at the early stage is clearly a negotiation point: if the court grants it, which seems unlikely, it'll be a strong bargening chip for a negotiation a settlement in cash/royalties/etc, not the actual goal of ARM.
Agreed, I think on your last point ARM is also trying for a fast case/settlement as they are in a difficult position:
They don't want to have a long fight expensive fight with qualcom and make other arm companies uneasy about investing in the arm platform.
They also don't want to open the door to have companies buy their IP for "cheap" by buying smaller companies with special arm licences instead of directly negotiating with them.
They don't want to have a long fight expensive fight with qualcom and make other arm companies uneasy about investing in the arm platform.
They also don't want to open the door to have companies buy their IP for "cheap" by buying smaller companies with special arm licences instead of directly negotiating with them.
> They also don't want to open the door to have companies buy their IP for "cheap" by buying smaller companies with special arm licences instead of directly negotiating with them.
Is it really ARMs IP or the IP developed by the smaller company. My understanding is ARM is like a blueprint, and you then make changes as needed.
Is it really ARMs IP or the IP developed by the smaller company. My understanding is ARM is like a blueprint, and you then make changes as needed.
[deleted]
It they (reasonably) charge for the blueprint based on what you say you are building.
The only reason small companies can get a license on easy terms is because of the narrow planned use.
The only reason small companies can get a license on easy terms is because of the narrow planned use.
That kinda depends on your licencing agreement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture_family#Licens...
You can either licence a IP Core block(Core, gpu,etc) to embedd in your device, our you can buy an architect licence and design your own cores as long as they comply with the arm architecture.
AFAIK the IP is actually buildable cores which arm get's by partnering with companies to get it right, e.g. there is not that much difference between them fully building them in house and selling them vs. letting partners build them(for the end user).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture_family#Licens...
You can either licence a IP Core block(Core, gpu,etc) to embedd in your device, our you can buy an architect licence and design your own cores as long as they comply with the arm architecture.
AFAIK the IP is actually buildable cores which arm get's by partnering with companies to get it right, e.g. there is not that much difference between them fully building them in house and selling them vs. letting partners build them(for the end user).
"Snapdragon X Elite" is based on the IP Qualcomm gained from the Acquisition of Nuvia, who developed this IP based on a very narrow license they got from ARM to develop for the server market.
Qualcomm is trying to transfer everything Nuvia has developed under that specific narrow ARM-license to the broad license of Qualcomm and use it for "powering flagship smartphones, next-generation laptops, and digital cockpits, as well as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, extended reality and infrastructure networking solutions"
ARM has filed a lawsuit that this was never in scope of the license of Nuvia, the court-ruling is still pending on that one...
The related court-filing is worth a read: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22273195/arm-v-qualco...
Qualcomm is trying to transfer everything Nuvia has developed under that specific narrow ARM-license to the broad license of Qualcomm and use it for "powering flagship smartphones, next-generation laptops, and digital cockpits, as well as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, extended reality and infrastructure networking solutions"
ARM has filed a lawsuit that this was never in scope of the license of Nuvia, the court-ruling is still pending on that one...
The related court-filing is worth a read: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22273195/arm-v-qualco...
Moreover, Nuvia's ARM-licenses and everything produced from it became invalid with Qualcomm's acquisition, so the tech produced from it is simply not licensed anymore.
In detail, the dispute goes like this:
1. ARM gave a broad range of licenses to Nuvia to develop an ARM-based architecture for use in servers, with a license-fee to match this objective (probably a favorable one for ARM, because it's a field ARM aims to expand):
"Nuvia’s licensing fees and royalty rates reflected the anticipated scope and nature of Nuvia’s use of the Arm architecture. The licenses safeguarded Arm’s rights and expectations by prohibiting assignment without Arm’s consent, regardless of whether a contemplated assignee had its own Arm licenses."
2. Qualcomm acquires Nuvia with the intention to use the developed IP for (quote):
"powering flagship smartphones, next-generation laptops, and digital cockpits, as well as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, extended reality and infrastructure networking solutions"
Sounds quite reasonable if the claim is validated: ARM gave favorable conditions to a startup which aimed to compete in a field where ARM is weak (servers). Now the biggest customer of the strongest revenue-market of ARM (mobile devices) has acquired that startup to repurpose their development and license to use in mobile devices, PCs, automotive, VR,...
In detail, the dispute goes like this:
1. ARM gave a broad range of licenses to Nuvia to develop an ARM-based architecture for use in servers, with a license-fee to match this objective (probably a favorable one for ARM, because it's a field ARM aims to expand):
"Nuvia’s licensing fees and royalty rates reflected the anticipated scope and nature of Nuvia’s use of the Arm architecture. The licenses safeguarded Arm’s rights and expectations by prohibiting assignment without Arm’s consent, regardless of whether a contemplated assignee had its own Arm licenses."
2. Qualcomm acquires Nuvia with the intention to use the developed IP for (quote):
"powering flagship smartphones, next-generation laptops, and digital cockpits, as well as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, extended reality and infrastructure networking solutions"
Sounds quite reasonable if the claim is validated: ARM gave favorable conditions to a startup which aimed to compete in a field where ARM is weak (servers). Now the biggest customer of the strongest revenue-market of ARM (mobile devices) has acquired that startup to repurpose their development and license to use in mobile devices, PCs, automotive, VR,...
The part you are leaving out that before Qualcomm acquired Nuvia, they already owned a blanket license from ARM with no such use restrictions. Their claim is that they can use the IP they acquired under this older license.
Which side is right or wrong here depends on the exact wording of the license between ARM and Qualcomm, and since this is not publicly known, no-one outside those companies knows which side is in the right.
Which side is right or wrong here depends on the exact wording of the license between ARM and Qualcomm, and since this is not publicly known, no-one outside those companies knows which side is in the right.
I'm not leaving that out:
"Qualcomm is trying to transfer everything Nuvia has developed under that specific narrow ARM-license to the broad license of Qualcomm"
ARMs legal claim is that the broad license of Qualcomm is not applicable to "host" the IP of Nuvia, because this IP was built on a very specific narrow license ARM provided to them, with contractual terms which do not allow the License and IP to be transferred
"Qualcomm is trying to transfer everything Nuvia has developed under that specific narrow ARM-license to the broad license of Qualcomm"
ARMs legal claim is that the broad license of Qualcomm is not applicable to "host" the IP of Nuvia, because this IP was built on a very specific narrow license ARM provided to them, with contractual terms which do not allow the License and IP to be transferred
Yeah, that's the weird part.
Nuvia's ARM license (now owned by Qualcomm) may be invalid for Qualcomm non-server use.
But how can Nuvia IP be invalid?
Presumably ARM never owned Nuvia's IP: why would they have negotiated that, given they already had license control?
Ergo, Qualcomm owns Nuvia IP without a Nuvia ARM license.
... but that's fine, because Qualcomm has a Qualcomm ARM license.
"I revoke your license, so you can't sell your IP to a willing third party" is a pretty dangerous precedent. You should be perfectly free to do so, to the extent that your buyer would also need their own license.
Nuvia's ARM license (now owned by Qualcomm) may be invalid for Qualcomm non-server use.
But how can Nuvia IP be invalid?
Presumably ARM never owned Nuvia's IP: why would they have negotiated that, given they already had license control?
Ergo, Qualcomm owns Nuvia IP without a Nuvia ARM license.
... but that's fine, because Qualcomm has a Qualcomm ARM license.
"I revoke your license, so you can't sell your IP to a willing third party" is a pretty dangerous precedent. You should be perfectly free to do so, to the extent that your buyer would also need their own license.
How can Nuvia IP be invalid? Well, that's the beauty of Intellectual Property: it's not really a property it's a weird legal construct. Arm argues the entire Nuvia IP should have disappeared because the license allowing it to exist was voided when Qualcomm bought Nuvia. And Qualcomm had no legal right to move the IP on the foundation of their ARM license. They argue Qualcomm should've negotiated for a new license to use Nuvia IP. Whether they are right or not is up for the courts to decide but they make a legally sound argument without a doubt.
If this makes no sense then here's a simple example: a DVD is not property, it's intellectual property. If it were property then region locks couldn't exist. Compare it to a book. You buy a book in London, no one stops you from reading it in New York, it's your property. Absurdity is the name of the game: in the DeCSS trial it was argued Johansen trespassed on his own computer.
Edit: ah, I have a better, simpler explanation: Arm and Nuvia made a contract. Qualcomm bought Nuvia. Arm argues Qualcomm violated the terms of the contract. That's it.
If this makes no sense then here's a simple example: a DVD is not property, it's intellectual property. If it were property then region locks couldn't exist. Compare it to a book. You buy a book in London, no one stops you from reading it in New York, it's your property. Absurdity is the name of the game: in the DeCSS trial it was argued Johansen trespassed on his own computer.
Edit: ah, I have a better, simpler explanation: Arm and Nuvia made a contract. Qualcomm bought Nuvia. Arm argues Qualcomm violated the terms of the contract. That's it.
The problem is that Qualcomm-ARM may already have a license contract that's a superset of Nuvia-ARM.
Depending on the wording of Qualcomm's architectural ARM license, it seems like that might cover Nuvia's IP?
Or in other words, if anyone who wasn't an ARM architectural licensee bought Nuvia, Nuvia's IP would have been unusable.
But because someone with a "do anything custom with this core" bought Nuvia, Qualcomm effectively bought some "anything custom".
The real IP needle in this haystack seems to be: what ARM IP did Nuvia use that Qualcomm doesn't already have an architectural license for? I.e. extra sauce ARM shared with them for their specific use case.
Which sets up for a SCO-Unix-style threshing of technical details for individual pieces.
Which I imagine both ARM and Qualcomm will eventually want to avoid, as they'd like to continue doing business together, so this will eventually collapse into a new licensing agreement that covers all claims. (Assuming neither pisses the other off badly enough to salt the earth)
Depending on the wording of Qualcomm's architectural ARM license, it seems like that might cover Nuvia's IP?
Or in other words, if anyone who wasn't an ARM architectural licensee bought Nuvia, Nuvia's IP would have been unusable.
But because someone with a "do anything custom with this core" bought Nuvia, Qualcomm effectively bought some "anything custom".
The real IP needle in this haystack seems to be: what ARM IP did Nuvia use that Qualcomm doesn't already have an architectural license for? I.e. extra sauce ARM shared with them for their specific use case.
Which sets up for a SCO-Unix-style threshing of technical details for individual pieces.
Which I imagine both ARM and Qualcomm will eventually want to avoid, as they'd like to continue doing business together, so this will eventually collapse into a new licensing agreement that covers all claims. (Assuming neither pisses the other off badly enough to salt the earth)
> Depending on the wording of Qualcomm's architectural ARM license, it seems like that might cover Nuvia's IP?
Right, but ARM says "Nuvia’s licensing fees and royalty rates reflected the anticipated scope and nature of Nuvia’s use of the Arm architecture. The licenses safeguarded Arm’s rights and expectations by prohibiting assignment without Arm’s consent, regardless of whether a contemplated assignee had its own Arm licenses"
Basically ARM says Qualcomm should pay more than they did before because no, their blanket doesn't cover Nuvia.
> so this will eventually collapse into a new licensing agreement that covers all claims
Obviously. That's the crux of the matter. Qualcomm says they shouldn't pay more, ARM says they should.
Right, but ARM says "Nuvia’s licensing fees and royalty rates reflected the anticipated scope and nature of Nuvia’s use of the Arm architecture. The licenses safeguarded Arm’s rights and expectations by prohibiting assignment without Arm’s consent, regardless of whether a contemplated assignee had its own Arm licenses"
Basically ARM says Qualcomm should pay more than they did before because no, their blanket doesn't cover Nuvia.
> so this will eventually collapse into a new licensing agreement that covers all claims
Obviously. That's the crux of the matter. Qualcomm says they shouldn't pay more, ARM says they should.
> Presumably ARM never owned Nuvia's IP: why would they have negotiated that, given they already had license control?
That seems to me to be the key point in contention, or at least whether or not ARM owns the right to prevent Nuvia from selling IP that Nuvia created. As Qualcomm's lawyers put it
> 25. Second, ARM was claiming a right to control the transfer of NUVIA technology when NUVIA’s ALA provided no such rights to ARM.
and as ARM's lawyers put it
> 25. Arm denies the allegations in paragraph 25.
Note if you deny in part you say which part you are denying and which part you are admitting, thus here they are denying the statement entirely, and thus claiming they had the rights to control the transfer of NUVIA technology (which is also the broader theme of the filing).
Without being able to actually see the contractual terms I don't see how the public could conclude which side is right in this dispute, but basically everything seems to center on this. Either ARM's license grants them control over technology Nuvia created, even if all the confidential information that technology was based off of is no longer confidential, and/or the party you are trying to transfer it to has licenses to all the technology it was based off of (and ARM probably wins), or it doesn't (and Qualcomm probably wins).
If I was thinking about doing business with arm I'd want to be very sure that whatever agreements I signed where of the second form, or I was getting a huge company-altering discount in exchange for them being of the first form.
That seems to me to be the key point in contention, or at least whether or not ARM owns the right to prevent Nuvia from selling IP that Nuvia created. As Qualcomm's lawyers put it
> 25. Second, ARM was claiming a right to control the transfer of NUVIA technology when NUVIA’s ALA provided no such rights to ARM.
and as ARM's lawyers put it
> 25. Arm denies the allegations in paragraph 25.
Note if you deny in part you say which part you are denying and which part you are admitting, thus here they are denying the statement entirely, and thus claiming they had the rights to control the transfer of NUVIA technology (which is also the broader theme of the filing).
Without being able to actually see the contractual terms I don't see how the public could conclude which side is right in this dispute, but basically everything seems to center on this. Either ARM's license grants them control over technology Nuvia created, even if all the confidential information that technology was based off of is no longer confidential, and/or the party you are trying to transfer it to has licenses to all the technology it was based off of (and ARM probably wins), or it doesn't (and Qualcomm probably wins).
If I was thinking about doing business with arm I'd want to be very sure that whatever agreements I signed where of the second form, or I was getting a huge company-altering discount in exchange for them being of the first form.
ARM doesn't claim to own the IP of Nuvia, they merely claim that the license they gave to Nuvia to develop server-architecture based on ARM does not allow the IP to be transferred to other licenses or other use-cases.
Since the license the Nuvia IP was built on became void when the company changed ownership, the IP is not built on a valid license.
> "I revoke your license, so you can't sell your IP to a willing third party" is a pretty dangerous precedent. You should be perfectly free to do so, to the extent that your buyer would also need their own license.
ARM does offer licenses for comparable designs (Blackhawk, Cortex-X), but Qualcomm apparently insists that they don't need to license those because they acquired Nuvia and can simply integrate that IP on top of their existing ARM-license instead.
My guess is that the gamble of Qualcomm is to force ARM to license the Nuvia IP to Qualcomm again for a more-favorable fee than ARM's comparable designs cost, and ARM sees no reason to do so.
Since the license the Nuvia IP was built on became void when the company changed ownership, the IP is not built on a valid license.
> "I revoke your license, so you can't sell your IP to a willing third party" is a pretty dangerous precedent. You should be perfectly free to do so, to the extent that your buyer would also need their own license.
ARM does offer licenses for comparable designs (Blackhawk, Cortex-X), but Qualcomm apparently insists that they don't need to license those because they acquired Nuvia and can simply integrate that IP on top of their existing ARM-license instead.
My guess is that the gamble of Qualcomm is to force ARM to license the Nuvia IP to Qualcomm again for a more-favorable fee than ARM's comparable designs cost, and ARM sees no reason to do so.
> Since the license the Nuvia IP was built on became void when the company changed ownership, the IP is not built on a valid license.
Here's where the wording gets confusing.
ARM has their own IP: their core designs, ISA (?), etc.
ARM also has licensing of that IP.
ARM also has platform licensing: allowing others to implement their ISA, call themselves ARM-compatible, etc.
Nuvia built a product, with an ARM license (because they wanted to go to market).
Did they also incorporate ARM IP into their design (i.e. extend existing ARM core designs)?
But neither of those should matter... because afaik Qualcomm already has an architecture ARM license (one of the few, ~15). [0]
Consequently, if Qualcomm already has an architecture license to the core Nuvia built on... that's a superset of any license Nuvia had, given that an architecture license allows for unlimited customizability.
Consequently, this feels like ARM trying to defend their (future) revenue by retroactively limiting licenses they already sold.
[0] Background https://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/07/a-long-look-at-how-arm-l...
Here's where the wording gets confusing.
ARM has their own IP: their core designs, ISA (?), etc.
ARM also has licensing of that IP.
ARM also has platform licensing: allowing others to implement their ISA, call themselves ARM-compatible, etc.
Nuvia built a product, with an ARM license (because they wanted to go to market).
Did they also incorporate ARM IP into their design (i.e. extend existing ARM core designs)?
But neither of those should matter... because afaik Qualcomm already has an architecture ARM license (one of the few, ~15). [0]
Consequently, if Qualcomm already has an architecture license to the core Nuvia built on... that's a superset of any license Nuvia had, given that an architecture license allows for unlimited customizability.
Consequently, this feels like ARM trying to defend their (future) revenue by retroactively limiting licenses they already sold.
[0] Background https://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/07/a-long-look-at-how-arm-l...
> Did they also incorporate ARM IP into their design (i.e. extend existing ARM core designs)?
Well yes, they created a modified architecture compatible with ARM instruction-set, by using extensive access to ARM's IP and resources.
Agree on the rest, except that ARM obviously doesn't retroactively limit the license they gave to Nuvia, these terms were already part of Nuvia's license from the start.
From the court-documents it seems that Qualcomm doesn't argue the interpretation of those terms, they argue that they should not be enforced.
Well yes, they created a modified architecture compatible with ARM instruction-set, by using extensive access to ARM's IP and resources.
Agree on the rest, except that ARM obviously doesn't retroactively limit the license they gave to Nuvia, these terms were already part of Nuvia's license from the start.
From the court-documents it seems that Qualcomm doesn't argue the interpretation of those terms, they argue that they should not be enforced.
> Agree on the rest, except that ARM obviously doesn't retroactively limit the license they gave to Nuvia, these terms were already part of Nuvia's license from the start.
The retroactive part is the concept of not being able to transfer the Nuvia IP.
> From the court-documents it seems that Qualcomm doesn't argue the interpretation of those terms, they argue that they should not be enforced.
Earlier you said the Nuvia license was void. Isn't the meaning of void that no terms will be enforced?
The retroactive part is the concept of not being able to transfer the Nuvia IP.
> From the court-documents it seems that Qualcomm doesn't argue the interpretation of those terms, they argue that they should not be enforced.
Earlier you said the Nuvia license was void. Isn't the meaning of void that no terms will be enforced?
> Earlier you said the Nuvia license was void. Isn't the meaning of void that no terms will be enforced?
The license is void, the contract is still valid and defines what has to happen when there no longer is a valid license.
The license is void, the contract is still valid and defines what has to happen when there no longer is a valid license.
> the IP is not built on a valid license
But is "built on" a thing that matters at all?
Plenty of things that will eventually need a license to go into production get "built" without that license. And that's a worse case, analogous to the Nuvia license never even existing.
But is "built on" a thing that matters at all?
Plenty of things that will eventually need a license to go into production get "built" without that license. And that's a worse case, analogous to the Nuvia license never even existing.
It is very common that IP created by specific employees exposed to the IP of a third party is essentially tainted, and this will be spelled out contractually.
I have actually fought to keep specific team members off NDAs to enable them to be maximally useful for this reason.
I have actually fought to keep specific team members off NDAs to enable them to be maximally useful for this reason.
I encourage people to read the court-filings in any case if they're interested in the case.
But I'd also caution people new to this that lawyers are extremely good at making their case seem obviously right even when it isn't. If you're not nodding along going "that seems right" when you read the argument in a complaint the lawyers either have a really bad case, or they screwed up (or in rare cases they're making technical arguments that they think will seem right to the judge even if they don't seem right to lay people). It's better to wait for a chance to read the response from the other side before agreeing that the side you are reading is right.
In this case this lawsuit is from 2022, we have the responses already :)
Here's the docket that lists all the filings: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64938776/arm-ltd-v-qual...
And to extract the relevant items from that docket
Here's the response, at a minimum if you find ARMs complaint convincing you should read this: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...
Here's ARMs response to the response: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...
From a reasonably quick scan it looks like everything else in this suit is about discovery, scheduling, and whether it should be a jury a trial or just heard in front of a judge.
Scheduling note: A 5-day Jury Trial is set for 12/16/2024
But I'd also caution people new to this that lawyers are extremely good at making their case seem obviously right even when it isn't. If you're not nodding along going "that seems right" when you read the argument in a complaint the lawyers either have a really bad case, or they screwed up (or in rare cases they're making technical arguments that they think will seem right to the judge even if they don't seem right to lay people). It's better to wait for a chance to read the response from the other side before agreeing that the side you are reading is right.
In this case this lawsuit is from 2022, we have the responses already :)
Here's the docket that lists all the filings: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64938776/arm-ltd-v-qual...
And to extract the relevant items from that docket
Here's the response, at a minimum if you find ARMs complaint convincing you should read this: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...
Here's ARMs response to the response: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...
From a reasonably quick scan it looks like everything else in this suit is about discovery, scheduling, and whether it should be a jury a trial or just heard in front of a judge.
Scheduling note: A 5-day Jury Trial is set for 12/16/2024
Also interesting, seeing how the defendants are expanding the scope of the lawsuit to delay its progress and keep everyone busy:
- Qualcomm requesting the court to order ARM to provide ALL Architecture License Contracts with ANY party so Qualcomm can judge whether they are in violation of THEIR contract [1]
- Apple requesting the court to NOT share this information, as they are not relevant to this case and a customer of BOTH ARM and Qualcomm [2]
- Qualcomm trying to subpoena other licensees Apple, MediaTek, Google, Intel, etc. to court [3]
Meanwhile Snapdragon X Elite pre-production is ramping up, Qualcomm-customers finalize their Hardware-design, Microsoft putting all their weight onto that architecture. So by end of 2024 the products are already launched, products are shipped and Qualcomm has more allies to help them arguing against trade-restrictions...
Regardless what the final outcome is, the better strategy of Qualcomm is obviously to have no outcome in short-term.
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...
[2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...
[3] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64938776/arm-ltd-v-qual...
- Qualcomm requesting the court to order ARM to provide ALL Architecture License Contracts with ANY party so Qualcomm can judge whether they are in violation of THEIR contract [1]
- Apple requesting the court to NOT share this information, as they are not relevant to this case and a customer of BOTH ARM and Qualcomm [2]
- Qualcomm trying to subpoena other licensees Apple, MediaTek, Google, Intel, etc. to court [3]
Meanwhile Snapdragon X Elite pre-production is ramping up, Qualcomm-customers finalize their Hardware-design, Microsoft putting all their weight onto that architecture. So by end of 2024 the products are already launched, products are shipped and Qualcomm has more allies to help them arguing against trade-restrictions...
Regardless what the final outcome is, the better strategy of Qualcomm is obviously to have no outcome in short-term.
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...
[2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...
[3] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64938776/arm-ltd-v-qual...
It was also further delayed until December of 2024 because during Depositions Qualcomm learned that ARM didn't destroy nuvia designs like they were required to when they terminated the ALA.
So ARM is suing Qualcomm stating that the IP rights were non-assignable per the ALA, then Qualcomm finds out that ARM also did not hold up its side of the ALA termination agreement and is using Nuvia IP in their current gen designs.
So ARM is suing Qualcomm stating that the IP rights were non-assignable per the ALA, then Qualcomm finds out that ARM also did not hold up its side of the ALA termination agreement and is using Nuvia IP in their current gen designs.
Which is Qualcomm trying to have it both ways:
They don't agree since 2022 that Nuvia's related IP must be destroyed on termination of that license agreement, because they expect to own it due to a different license-agreement they have with ARM, but argue that ARM, the owner of the licensed architecture in question, should have destroyed all information, already KNOWING that Qualcomm intends to fight this contract.
So in turn, for ARM to defend itself in this case moving forward, Qualcomm's implication is that ARM should ask Qualcomm to provide the required information to them. But the whole case of ARM is that Qualcomm is NOT the rightful owner of this information.
-
It's also quite a visible move just to delay the proceedings.
Qualcomm states [1] that they learned this new evidence at (ARM's) Mr. Agrawal’s deposition on Dec.12 2023, contacted ARM "less than three weeks" after that to "meet and confer", but "ARM would not meaningfully engage until January 16".
Less than 3 weeks after Dec.12 2023 is NYE, between Dec.28 and Jan.03, ARM obviously responded (but did not "engage meaningfully" according to Qualcomm)
At the point Qualcomm considers ARM showing meaningful engagement, they met within 3 days, on a Friday. And on Jan.22, "the next business day", they contacted the court.
So ARM's legal team was not available to meet at NYE, didn't respond "meaningfully" immediately and an appropriate meeting-slot agreed by ARM and Qualcomm was only possible more than a month after that deposition...
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...
They don't agree since 2022 that Nuvia's related IP must be destroyed on termination of that license agreement, because they expect to own it due to a different license-agreement they have with ARM, but argue that ARM, the owner of the licensed architecture in question, should have destroyed all information, already KNOWING that Qualcomm intends to fight this contract.
So in turn, for ARM to defend itself in this case moving forward, Qualcomm's implication is that ARM should ask Qualcomm to provide the required information to them. But the whole case of ARM is that Qualcomm is NOT the rightful owner of this information.
-
It's also quite a visible move just to delay the proceedings.
Qualcomm states [1] that they learned this new evidence at (ARM's) Mr. Agrawal’s deposition on Dec.12 2023, contacted ARM "less than three weeks" after that to "meet and confer", but "ARM would not meaningfully engage until January 16".
Less than 3 weeks after Dec.12 2023 is NYE, between Dec.28 and Jan.03, ARM obviously responded (but did not "engage meaningfully" according to Qualcomm)
At the point Qualcomm considers ARM showing meaningful engagement, they met within 3 days, on a Friday. And on Jan.22, "the next business day", they contacted the court.
So ARM's legal team was not available to meet at NYE, didn't respond "meaningfully" immediately and an appropriate meeting-slot agreed by ARM and Qualcomm was only possible more than a month after that deposition...
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...
Qualcomm's case goes beyond "we have a valid license agreement" as to the destruction of Nuvia's design. They're arguing that they do have a valid license agreement, but also that even if they didn't they would still be the lawful owners of the IP and would not be required to destroy it. They might not be able to use it, but they could hold onto it, because nothing in Nuvia's contract with ARM requires it be destroyed by Nuvia.
> 5. Even putting aside Qualcomm’s broad license rights, ARM’s reading of the termination obligations in the NUVIA Architecture License Agreement (“ALA”) is wrong. To the extent any destruction obligation exists, it explicitly applies only to ARM Confidential Information.1 But ARM again omits important facts: (1) under the NUVIA ALA, information in the public domain is not subject to confidentiality obligations, and (2) ARM publishes its instruction set without confidentiality restrictions. Anyone is free to go to the ARM website and download the 10,000+ page ARM Architecture Reference Manual.2 In this case, Qualcomm’s CPU cores are designed to be compatible with the publicly-available ARM Architecture version <redacted>.
> 36. Moreover, even though ARM demanded destruction of Confidential Information obtained under NUVIA’s ALA, NUVIA had implemented ARM Architecture <redacted>, which had been publicly available on ARM’s website for anyone to download since at least around January 2021—over a year before the destruction request. <Redacted sentence>. Therefore, ARM Architecture was not Confidential Information, not subject to any restrictions, and not subject to any destruction obligation. For the same reasons, the NUVIA core design did not contain ARM Confidential Information.
...
> It's also quite a visible move just to delay the proceedings.
I really don't agree. It looks like a bog standard discovery dispute.
(cites are paragraph numbers in https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...)
> 5. Even putting aside Qualcomm’s broad license rights, ARM’s reading of the termination obligations in the NUVIA Architecture License Agreement (“ALA”) is wrong. To the extent any destruction obligation exists, it explicitly applies only to ARM Confidential Information.1 But ARM again omits important facts: (1) under the NUVIA ALA, information in the public domain is not subject to confidentiality obligations, and (2) ARM publishes its instruction set without confidentiality restrictions. Anyone is free to go to the ARM website and download the 10,000+ page ARM Architecture Reference Manual.2 In this case, Qualcomm’s CPU cores are designed to be compatible with the publicly-available ARM Architecture version <redacted>.
> 36. Moreover, even though ARM demanded destruction of Confidential Information obtained under NUVIA’s ALA, NUVIA had implemented ARM Architecture <redacted>, which had been publicly available on ARM’s website for anyone to download since at least around January 2021—over a year before the destruction request. <Redacted sentence>. Therefore, ARM Architecture was not Confidential Information, not subject to any restrictions, and not subject to any destruction obligation. For the same reasons, the NUVIA core design did not contain ARM Confidential Information.
...
> It's also quite a visible move just to delay the proceedings.
I really don't agree. It looks like a bog standard discovery dispute.
(cites are paragraph numbers in https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...)
> They don't agree since 2022 that Nuvia's related IP must be destroyed on termination of that license agreement, because they expect to own it due to a different license-agreement they have with ARM, but argue that ARM, the owner of the licensed architecture in question, should have destroyed all information, already KNOWING that Qualcomm intends to fight this contract.
The way you phrased that does sound like trying to have it both ways, but wouldn't those designs be co-owned by Arm and Nuvia? If so it makes logical sense to say that Arm has to delete and Qualcomm doesn't, because Qualcomm has a claim to both sides, but Arm only has a claim to one side. That's not trying to have it both ways.
> So in turn, for ARM to defend itself in this case moving forward, Qualcomm's implication is that ARM should ask Qualcomm to provide the required information to them. But the whole case of ARM is that Qualcomm is NOT the rightful owner of this information.
That's just being clever.
The way you phrased that does sound like trying to have it both ways, but wouldn't those designs be co-owned by Arm and Nuvia? If so it makes logical sense to say that Arm has to delete and Qualcomm doesn't, because Qualcomm has a claim to both sides, but Arm only has a claim to one side. That's not trying to have it both ways.
> So in turn, for ARM to defend itself in this case moving forward, Qualcomm's implication is that ARM should ask Qualcomm to provide the required information to them. But the whole case of ARM is that Qualcomm is NOT the rightful owner of this information.
That's just being clever.
[deleted]
(The page displays fine with ublock-origin + blocked 3rd-party {scripts,frames} + "cookie notices" filter lists)
> Do you have a source not behind a "cookie wall"?
Ignore it, use technical measures to overcome it, disregard it.
If a stranger came up to you in the street and demanded $5 to continue looking at them, you’d tell them to fuck off (in so many words). You certainly wouldn’t avert your eyes, nor would you cough up.
Fuck these bozos and their shrink wrap licenses and their cookie popups and all.
Ignore it, use technical measures to overcome it, disregard it.
If a stranger came up to you in the street and demanded $5 to continue looking at them, you’d tell them to fuck off (in so many words). You certainly wouldn’t avert your eyes, nor would you cough up.
Fuck these bozos and their shrink wrap licenses and their cookie popups and all.
If someone did that, I would probably leave them alone, and if someone wanted to use them as a source, I would probably at least ask if they knew anybody more reasonable.
(The page displays fine with js disabled)
Arm Ltd. v. Qualcomm Inc. (1:22-cv-01146)
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/gov.u...
From the complaint:
22. (Page 6)
[...]
The licenses safeguarded Arm’s rights and expectations by prohibiting assignment without Arm’s consent, regardless of whether a contemplated assignee had its own Arm licenses.
39. (Page 12)
On February 1, 2022, Arm sent a letter to Nuvia and Qualcomm terminating the Nuvia licenses effective March 1, 2022. The letter terminated the licenses based on Nuvia’s material breach of the assignment provisions of the Nuvia licenses by entering into the acquisition of Nuvia without Arm’s consent.
42. (Page 12)
On April 1, 2022, Qualcomm’s General Counsel sent Arm a letter enclosing a Nuvia representative’s termination certification. The certification acknowledged—without objection—that the Nuvia licenses had been terminated. The certification recognized the obligations upon termination, and asserted that Nuvia was in compliance. Qualcomm and Nuvia thereby conceded that termination of the Nuvia licenses was appropriate, and that the termination provisions had been triggered, are binding, and are enforceable.
47. (Page 14)
Qualcomm’s Arm licenses do not cover products based on or incorporating Arm-based technologies developed by third parties under different Arm licenses
62. (Page 17)
Upon termination, the Nuvia ALA requires Nuvia to cease using and destroy any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA, as well as cease using Arm’s trademarks in connection with any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA.
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/gov.u...
From the complaint:
22. (Page 6)
[...]
The licenses safeguarded Arm’s rights and expectations by prohibiting assignment without Arm’s consent, regardless of whether a contemplated assignee had its own Arm licenses.
39. (Page 12)
On February 1, 2022, Arm sent a letter to Nuvia and Qualcomm terminating the Nuvia licenses effective March 1, 2022. The letter terminated the licenses based on Nuvia’s material breach of the assignment provisions of the Nuvia licenses by entering into the acquisition of Nuvia without Arm’s consent.
42. (Page 12)
On April 1, 2022, Qualcomm’s General Counsel sent Arm a letter enclosing a Nuvia representative’s termination certification. The certification acknowledged—without objection—that the Nuvia licenses had been terminated. The certification recognized the obligations upon termination, and asserted that Nuvia was in compliance. Qualcomm and Nuvia thereby conceded that termination of the Nuvia licenses was appropriate, and that the termination provisions had been triggered, are binding, and are enforceable.
47. (Page 14)
Qualcomm’s Arm licenses do not cover products based on or incorporating Arm-based technologies developed by third parties under different Arm licenses
62. (Page 17)
Upon termination, the Nuvia ALA requires Nuvia to cease using and destroy any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA, as well as cease using Arm’s trademarks in connection with any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA.
Once upon a time many moons ago i was given a development snapdragon board, pre FCC approval, for testing and application development. Rather quickly i had to contact my Qualcomm rep to inform them that iptables was missing. Not sure what i meant, they put me in contact with an engineer who scoffed at me and told me that i just needed to install the iptables binary from apt.
I then showed him that no, the iptables binary was present and giving me an error i had never seen before: warning iptables is not present in this kernel.
He went white and made a quick phone call and i was awarded for my discovery.
Since then i have been fairly skeptical of qualcomm... Great hardware but that incident was somehow very alarming to me as it is not possible to disable iptables normally in kconfig so they had been mucking about in the source tree of the firewall enough to break it.
I wonder what happened there.
I then showed him that no, the iptables binary was present and giving me an error i had never seen before: warning iptables is not present in this kernel.
He went white and made a quick phone call and i was awarded for my discovery.
Since then i have been fairly skeptical of qualcomm... Great hardware but that incident was somehow very alarming to me as it is not possible to disable iptables normally in kconfig so they had been mucking about in the source tree of the firewall enough to break it.
I wonder what happened there.
This time around, Qualcomm have sensibly contracted Linaro for upstream Linux support, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40350408
make allnoconfig, go from there, forget to turn netfilter on, oops
Holy hell, man
That’s scary
That’s scary
ARM has had a series of issues, but it has continued to do well despite all of them. The thing is, they’ve been doing well because of license holders. That’s their business. If they keep treating their customers poorly, they will lose. RISC-V, MIPS, and OpenPower are all available. This is especially poignant when we remember that ARM is currently valuable for its performance per watt, and not for its raw performance capability. As x86 gets better at efficiency, and as RISC-V gets better at raw performance, ARM’s entire market fit shrinks. Their best move would be to become more lenient in licensing terms, not less.
Edit, I was thinking market share when I said “do well” but ffgjgf1 pointed out that they’ve not been doing well financially. That’s an excellent point and likely explains some of ARM’s behavior. The problem is, alienating your license holders will only make the financials worse…
Edit, I was thinking market share when I said “do well” but ffgjgf1 pointed out that they’ve not been doing well financially. That’s an excellent point and likely explains some of ARM’s behavior. The problem is, alienating your license holders will only make the financials worse…
I’m kind of terrified of a fast windows experience where pushing the start menu button immediately brings up advertisements in the blink of an eye. At least in the past if I was fast enough it would fail to load in time.
Don't worry, Microsoft excels at absorbing hardware improvements as bloat in their software.
From wikipedia:
> Wirth's law is an adage on computer performance which states that software is getting slower more rapidly than hardware is becoming faster.
> "The hope is that the progress in hardware will cure all software ills. However, a critical observer may observe that software manages to outgrow hardware in size and sluggishness."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law
> Wirth's law is an adage on computer performance which states that software is getting slower more rapidly than hardware is becoming faster.
> "The hope is that the progress in hardware will cure all software ills. However, a critical observer may observe that software manages to outgrow hardware in size and sluggishness."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law
What Andy giveth, Bill taketh away.
Login screen ads will have such low latency you’ll be able to see home mortgage loan prices live in the quicken loans ad
On the bright side, it can also automatically apply updates and reboot in the blink of an eye, so all you perceives is that every app windows disappear. :)
I think the next frontier is to put them up in the blink of an eye - for exactly one frame. subliminadvertising.
You could always try running Linux instead.
Been daily driving Deb 12 + KDE for almost a year now and has been incredibly stable and positive.
I’ve been wondering why I can’t get something in a NUC like form factor with some legit cores and memory for a decent price. The x4 is launched, I’d totally settle for like 4 x1 cores, 4 or 8 x3 or x4 cores would be ideal, something that can out perform an intel nuc. Pi’s are cool, but I need some compute. I think I’m starting to get it with this wacky licensing stuff.
I’ve had some doubts the last few years but I have never really bet against intel. They have been shockingly good for a very very long time. A wave of elite x like parts on the desktop, at good prices, would hurt them, badly as the ecosystem spins up. AMD jumping in would also hurt them. The more ARM wastes this window of time, the more likely intel will get their process sorted and push out an aggressive microarchitecture on “x86s” and have ARM64 like qualities with some backwards compatibility
I’ve had some doubts the last few years but I have never really bet against intel. They have been shockingly good for a very very long time. A wave of elite x like parts on the desktop, at good prices, would hurt them, badly as the ecosystem spins up. AMD jumping in would also hurt them. The more ARM wastes this window of time, the more likely intel will get their process sorted and push out an aggressive microarchitecture on “x86s” and have ARM64 like qualities with some backwards compatibility
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2024/05/qualcomm-acce...
If his litigation goes away I see a bright future for Arm.
I'm just thinking of how much power I am wasting per day on Intel machines compared to Arm devices. (not taking into account the cost of purchase of course).
If his litigation goes away I see a bright future for Arm.
I'm just thinking of how much power I am wasting per day on Intel machines compared to Arm devices. (not taking into account the cost of purchase of course).
You're doing the classic You want three things but you can only get two. You want fast, small, and cheap. You have to pick two. If you want fast and small, get a Mac Mini.
"simplify, then add lightness"
Arm was cuter when they were the underdog.
Are Risc-V designs unencumbered, or there's still some IP holder that could sue you when the money pot grows big enough to make it worth it?
Are Risc-V designs unencumbered, or there's still some IP holder that could sue you when the money pot grows big enough to make it worth it?
If you are just using the RISC-V core alongside cores you've developed yourself or have licenses for, you're set. RISC-V ISA is provided. It has a very permissive, royalty-free license but you will need to become a paid member to use their trademark. I suppose they could change their license model at some point and attempt to revoke existing licenses but that would be suicide for them. Just like with all standards, there is always an IP holder but it's all a matter of how that IP is licensed out to users and the association that user can display with the IP holder. For example, you can sell a device with a Raspberry Pi inside but you can't use the HDMI trademark on your marketing materials without being a member of the HDMI Foundation.
> I suppose they could change their license model at some point and attempt to revoke existing licenses but that would be suicide for them.
... now. How about when it gets popular and too much resources have been poured into them? Like arm...
... now. How about when it gets popular and too much resources have been poured into them? Like arm...
Do not blame ARM's terrible attempts at ever more rent-seeking to their leadership position. Blame it on their incredibly boneheaded ownership history. SoftBank paid way too much for ARM, and now they have to try and make the money back somehow.
> Arm's argument is that the Nuvia license was canceled when it was taken over by Qualcomm.
This is like a windows (or anything else) license for a private person, that you cannot resell or give to anyone else. I'm curious whether these shenanigans will stand up between corporations as well.
Bad way of doing business, in any case.
This is like a windows (or anything else) license for a private person, that you cannot resell or give to anyone else. I'm curious whether these shenanigans will stand up between corporations as well.
Bad way of doing business, in any case.
It’s very common for corporations to include successor clauses in contract, to give strategic partners an opportunity to relicense sweetheart deals that they might have given plucky startups *like Nuvia). My suspicion is that it’s going to be very straightforward for ARM to document what successor clauses are in place. I suspect we are going to find out that there is one, and Qualcomm don’t care. Qualcomm is more lawyer company with engineers these days - they even made apple back down on licensing.
> Bad way of doing business, in any case.
From Qualcomm?
ARM gave Nuvia a sweetheart deal (including IP access) specifically to help tune and spread ARM on the server. Rather than negotiate for their own deal, Qualcomm decided to purchase Nuvia in order to reuse the IP and licenses, neither of which the agreement allowed according to ARM.
From Qualcomm?
ARM gave Nuvia a sweetheart deal (including IP access) specifically to help tune and spread ARM on the server. Rather than negotiate for their own deal, Qualcomm decided to purchase Nuvia in order to reuse the IP and licenses, neither of which the agreement allowed according to ARM.
Qualcomm already has their own blanket license and their own custom cores. Nuvia's license only covered server products, so Qualcomm could not use the acquired license anyway.
ARM claims that Qualcomms pre-existing license does not allow "technologies developed by third parties under different Arm licenses".
So I guess the case will come down to arguing if an acquired company counts as "a third party" or not
ARM claims that Qualcomms pre-existing license does not allow "technologies developed by third parties under different Arm licenses".
So I guess the case will come down to arguing if an acquired company counts as "a third party" or not
It also comes down to if the courts will allow exclusion of "technologies developed by third parties under different Arm licenses". In some cases the courts will determine some clause like that grossly unfair and so not enforceable. (seems unlikely, but type of thing can happen)
And what is a "technology". Can you literally not use anything patented by a third party ever? In court cases like this, technicalities like this matter a lot.
There is a difference between the Windows license and this - this is a contract. A contract meaning both parties had lawyers in the room (or at least should have) and came to an agreement. With Windows you don't get to change any of the wording, either accept it or not. As such the law and courts place more restrictions on what a license can do - check local laws, but regardless of the wording you may have the right to resell Windows to someone else even if the license says you cannot. However a contract means both parties agreed to this and so the courts are more likely to agree to the wording.
Even in a contract there are limits. You can never have a contract for murder is the obvious example. A contract that is very unfair to one party can be void as well - check with a lawyer for details in your area.
Even in a contract there are limits. You can never have a contract for murder is the obvious example. A contract that is very unfair to one party can be void as well - check with a lawyer for details in your area.
Qualcomm has their own license too. ie in addition to the Nuvia one
Qualcomm's license doesn't cover the IP Nuvia created with their license, and Nuvia's license (and everything created under it) became void when Qualcomm acquired the company.
Source: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22273195/arm-v-qualco...
Source: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22273195/arm-v-qualco...
So says ARM. Qualcom says otherwise.
We don't know who is right with only public info to go on. It all depends on what exactly Qualcoms contract says.
Obviously Qualcom has fully educated and competent lawyers who have read their own contracts in detail, and concluded they are good to go.
So it's not a given that ARMs assertion is the only valid and winning assertion. It's merely what they want. Maybe they have a right to what they want, maybe they don't.
We don't know who is right with only public info to go on. It all depends on what exactly Qualcoms contract says.
Obviously Qualcom has fully educated and competent lawyers who have read their own contracts in detail, and concluded they are good to go.
So it's not a given that ARMs assertion is the only valid and winning assertion. It's merely what they want. Maybe they have a right to what they want, maybe they don't.
Actually there's quite alot public info, as the case is quite public.
Here's a court-statement from Qualcomm on that topic: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...
Qualcomm agrees that the Nuvia License is void, they just claim that they can transfer all their IP to the Qualcomm license:.
"3. Qualcomm has its own license agreements with ARM, under which Qualcomm has licensed and paid for the same intellectual property that NUVIA licensed under its own separate agreements with ARM. Therefore, even though ARM terminated the NUVIA licenses, Qualcomm owns independent licenses for the same ARM technology and information"
-
ARM disagrees on this, referring to a clause in their license-contract with Nuvia: "Upon termination, the Nuvia ALA requires Nuvia to cease using and destroy any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA, as well as cease using Arm’s trademarks in connection with any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA"
The response of Qualcomm is this: "4. The notion that ARM has the right to control technology that is not ARM’s—and worse yet, to ask Defendants to destroy their innovation and inventions unless substantial monetary tribute is paid to ARM—offends customary norms of technology ownership, as well as NUVIA’s and Qualcomm’s rights under their agreements with ARM."
and this: "7. ARM’s position is a threat to the industry generally. Unless this Court rejects ARM’s arguments, ARM’s extreme position could be weaponized against all of its licensees, allowing ARM to claim ownership over all its licensees’ innovations."
-
So:
1. Nuvia's license (and everything created under it) became void when Qualcomm acquired the company --> Qualcomm obviously agrees.
2. Qualcomm's license doesn't cover the IP Nuvia created with their license --> Qualcomm argues that this is "offending" and "a threat to the industry"
-
So it is not so much in dispute what Qualcomm's or Nuvia's contract says, Qualcomm apparently tries to convince the court that they have the right to use Nuvia's IP despite the license of Nuvia saying otherwise...
Here's a court-statement from Qualcomm on that topic: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...
Qualcomm agrees that the Nuvia License is void, they just claim that they can transfer all their IP to the Qualcomm license:.
"3. Qualcomm has its own license agreements with ARM, under which Qualcomm has licensed and paid for the same intellectual property that NUVIA licensed under its own separate agreements with ARM. Therefore, even though ARM terminated the NUVIA licenses, Qualcomm owns independent licenses for the same ARM technology and information"
-
ARM disagrees on this, referring to a clause in their license-contract with Nuvia: "Upon termination, the Nuvia ALA requires Nuvia to cease using and destroy any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA, as well as cease using Arm’s trademarks in connection with any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA"
The response of Qualcomm is this: "4. The notion that ARM has the right to control technology that is not ARM’s—and worse yet, to ask Defendants to destroy their innovation and inventions unless substantial monetary tribute is paid to ARM—offends customary norms of technology ownership, as well as NUVIA’s and Qualcomm’s rights under their agreements with ARM."
and this: "7. ARM’s position is a threat to the industry generally. Unless this Court rejects ARM’s arguments, ARM’s extreme position could be weaponized against all of its licensees, allowing ARM to claim ownership over all its licensees’ innovations."
-
So:
1. Nuvia's license (and everything created under it) became void when Qualcomm acquired the company --> Qualcomm obviously agrees.
2. Qualcomm's license doesn't cover the IP Nuvia created with their license --> Qualcomm argues that this is "offending" and "a threat to the industry"
-
So it is not so much in dispute what Qualcomm's or Nuvia's contract says, Qualcomm apparently tries to convince the court that they have the right to use Nuvia's IP despite the license of Nuvia saying otherwise...
They don’t even have the Nuvia one anymore, ARM rescinded it.
[deleted]
Wow this some pretty biased reporting. No attempt to assess whether or no Qualcomm have actually breached their contractual license with ARM
> Arm's argument is that the Nuvia license was canceled when it was taken over by Qualcomm.
How could the reporter possibly know one way or another, certainly it depends on the contents of that contract? Has anyone outside these three parties (Qualcomm, Arm, Nuvia) have seen the contract in question?
To me the reporting seemed quite unbiased.
How could the reporter possibly know one way or another, certainly it depends on the contents of that contract? Has anyone outside these three parties (Qualcomm, Arm, Nuvia) have seen the contract in question?
To me the reporting seemed quite unbiased.
On top of that, only a court can decide about a breach of contract in the end.
Well, the terms of the contract are outlined in the respective lawsuit between ARM and Qualcomm: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22273195/arm-v-qualco...
That document says what ARM lawyers want it to say, not what is true and lawful.
Yeah, equally there is a document that says what Qualcomm's lawyers want it to say. Sorting through both and providing a summary is part of "journalism".
Here's one from Qualcomm: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...
And a quote from it, where Qualcomm states that it has the rights to use the IP from Nuvia because it has a ARM-license covering the same IP as Nuvia's ARM-license:
"3. Qualcomm has its own license agreements with ARM, under which Qualcomm has licensed and paid for the same intellectual property that NUVIA licensed under its own separate agreements with ARM. Therefore, even though ARM terminated the NUVIA licenses, Qualcomm owns independent licenses for the same ARM technology and information"
-
To this statement of ARM: "Upon termination, the Nuvia ALA requires Nuvia to cease using and destroy any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA, as well as cease using Arm’s trademarks in connection with any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA"
The response of Qualcomm is this: "4. The notion that ARM has the right to control technology that is not ARM’s—and worse yet, to ask Defendants to destroy their innovation and inventions unless substantial monetary tribute is paid to ARM—offends customary norms of technology ownership, as well as NUVIA’s and Qualcomm’s rights under their agreements with ARM."
and this: "7. ARM’s position is a threat to the industry generally. Unless this Court rejects ARM’s arguments, ARM’s extreme position could be weaponized against all of its licensees, allowing ARM to claim ownership over all its licensees’ innovations."
-
So, as an amateur reading through the case, there is sufficient information to conclude that ARM has a contract that limits the use of Nuvia IP to Nuvia alone, and Qualcomm tries to argue that these terms are "offending" and "a threat to the industry".
--> So, there is obviously no disagreement that these crucial terms are in fact part of the ARM/Nuvia License contract.
Here's one from Qualcomm: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798...
And a quote from it, where Qualcomm states that it has the rights to use the IP from Nuvia because it has a ARM-license covering the same IP as Nuvia's ARM-license:
"3. Qualcomm has its own license agreements with ARM, under which Qualcomm has licensed and paid for the same intellectual property that NUVIA licensed under its own separate agreements with ARM. Therefore, even though ARM terminated the NUVIA licenses, Qualcomm owns independent licenses for the same ARM technology and information"
-
To this statement of ARM: "Upon termination, the Nuvia ALA requires Nuvia to cease using and destroy any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA, as well as cease using Arm’s trademarks in connection with any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA"
The response of Qualcomm is this: "4. The notion that ARM has the right to control technology that is not ARM’s—and worse yet, to ask Defendants to destroy their innovation and inventions unless substantial monetary tribute is paid to ARM—offends customary norms of technology ownership, as well as NUVIA’s and Qualcomm’s rights under their agreements with ARM."
and this: "7. ARM’s position is a threat to the industry generally. Unless this Court rejects ARM’s arguments, ARM’s extreme position could be weaponized against all of its licensees, allowing ARM to claim ownership over all its licensees’ innovations."
-
So, as an amateur reading through the case, there is sufficient information to conclude that ARM has a contract that limits the use of Nuvia IP to Nuvia alone, and Qualcomm tries to argue that these terms are "offending" and "a threat to the industry".
--> So, there is obviously no disagreement that these crucial terms are in fact part of the ARM/Nuvia License contract.
It will take dozens of lawyers (at least three opinions between any two of them) many months and millions of dollars to figure it out, and you want the journalists to make a call?
The article sums up rough positions of both parties well enough.
The article sums up rough positions of both parties well enough.
It does, under 'It's all about licensing' section.
What's the bias? In whose favour?
Why would you want some blogger to draw conclusions of law?
Even if they did, I'd still object to requiring useful products to be turned into e-waste.
Who wants to bet that Qualcom is spinning a RISC-V version as fast as it can - this after all is why open source ISAs are a good thing
They've been very active in RISC-V technical groups recently. What exactly that means - whether they are serious about developing cores, or just want an insurance policy with leverage to use against Arm - isn't clear. Personally I hope we do get a "Snapdragon V" one day.
I don't think Qualcomm or any of the current market leaders will be the first to do a big RISC-V push. While dealing with the ARM company might be a hassle having an exclusive ISA limits the competition which is good for business. When the first one moves and the software is created for it there are more opportunities for competitors. Qualcomm doesn't want to create the invitation but also wants to make sure there is a place at the party for them.
RISC-V will probably get it's first big adoption through some new or shifting industry creating their own chip. Like how ARM got into phones or Amazon started to use their own ARM chips. This guarantees all the infrastructure can be build and used in the future.
RISC-V will probably get it's first big adoption through some new or shifting industry creating their own chip. Like how ARM got into phones or Amazon started to use their own ARM chips. This guarantees all the infrastructure can be build and used in the future.
It's nice having an open ISA but companies go with ARM because the cores are already developed. There are RISC-V cores available for purchase too but they aren't up to the same level of performance yet.
SiFive announced P870[0] last October[1]. It competes with ARM's absolute best.
Ventana Veyron V2 and Tenstorrent Ascalon/Alastor are other already announced, highly competitive, very high performance microarchitectures.
The high performance chips are coming. RISC-V is inevitable.
0. https://www.sifive.com/cores/performance-p870-p870a
1. https://www.sifive.com/press/sifive-announces-differentiated...
Ventana Veyron V2 and Tenstorrent Ascalon/Alastor are other already announced, highly competitive, very high performance microarchitectures.
The high performance chips are coming. RISC-V is inevitable.
0. https://www.sifive.com/cores/performance-p870-p870a
1. https://www.sifive.com/press/sifive-announces-differentiated...
I’ll take that
Why does Qualcomm need a license to design a custom ARM chip in the first place? Assuming they're not reusing or deriving from licensed IP blocks, and that they just cracked open a reference book and implemented the instruction set from scratch. Does ARM hold a copyright on the instruction set itself? Can you even copyright an instruction set? Or is it a bunch of patents?
"Snapdragon X Elite" is based on the IP Qualcomm gained from the Acquisition of Nuvia, who developed this IP based on a very narrow license they got from ARM to develop for the server market.
Qualcomm is trying to transfer everything Nuvia has developed under that specific narrow ARM-license to the broad license of Qualcomm and use it for "powering flagship smartphones, next-generation laptops, and digital cockpits, as well as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, extended reality and infrastructure networking solutions"
ARM has filed a lawsuit that this was never in scope of the license of Nuvia, the court-ruling is still pending on that one...
Qualcomm is trying to transfer everything Nuvia has developed under that specific narrow ARM-license to the broad license of Qualcomm and use it for "powering flagship smartphones, next-generation laptops, and digital cockpits, as well as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, extended reality and infrastructure networking solutions"
ARM has filed a lawsuit that this was never in scope of the license of Nuvia, the court-ruling is still pending on that one...
That’s quite interesting, does it tie into why the snapdragon X elite is so much better than anything they’ve produced in the past?
In a broader sense, yes.
Some generations back Qualcomm took the ARM design-license, designed their own CPU-cores based on it and added their custom GPU, DSP, etc.
-
Scorpion, Krait (32bit): Custom Qualcomm designs with full compatibility to ARM's instruction sets. They were the best in the business, knowing more about tailoring an ARM-core to a mobile use-case than any company in the world.
-
Then Apple disrupted the space with a 64bit ARM CPU. Qualcomm had to move fast from 32bit to 64bit to respond (why? ...that's arguable)
-
Kryo (64bit): To move from 32bit to 64bit within one year (!), Qualcomm adopted the available ARM 64bit design, added their IP for adjacent components and created the first Kryo CPU (SD820, mamma mia what a bad SoC that was...). Over time they applied more customization to that platform, but the base was always this Kryo-architecture (-> newer vanilla ARM-design + Qualcomm modifications)
For years, this approach was used now, including Snapdragon 8cx (modified ARM Cortex-X1 + Cortex-A78 + Qualcomm IP)
-
Oryon (64bit): Snapdragon X Elite is now Nuvia's modifications made on top of ARM's design, combined with Qualcomm's IP & modifications. So instead of being an iteration of the previous Qualcomm Kryo-based generation (applying Qualcomm's modifications onto a newer vanilla ARM-design), Qualcomm obviously applied their modifications on top of Nuvia's Design.
-
So (over)simplified: Qualcomm did the same as they did before on Kryo, but replaced the foundation with an already-modified ARM-design from the Nuvia team (I don't want to play down the effort Qualcomm took for that, for sure the Nuvia team they acquired had a huge amount of work to merge their design with Qualcomm's modifications. But overall, they put their customization-process on top of the Nuvia-output instead of the ARM-output)
ARM's lawsuit is now obviously also about Qualcomm assuming that they don't need to license a new core-design from ARM because they acquired Nuvia, which achieves a comparable result using an older ARM-design.
Some generations back Qualcomm took the ARM design-license, designed their own CPU-cores based on it and added their custom GPU, DSP, etc.
-
Scorpion, Krait (32bit): Custom Qualcomm designs with full compatibility to ARM's instruction sets. They were the best in the business, knowing more about tailoring an ARM-core to a mobile use-case than any company in the world.
-
Then Apple disrupted the space with a 64bit ARM CPU. Qualcomm had to move fast from 32bit to 64bit to respond (why? ...that's arguable)
-
Kryo (64bit): To move from 32bit to 64bit within one year (!), Qualcomm adopted the available ARM 64bit design, added their IP for adjacent components and created the first Kryo CPU (SD820, mamma mia what a bad SoC that was...). Over time they applied more customization to that platform, but the base was always this Kryo-architecture (-> newer vanilla ARM-design + Qualcomm modifications)
For years, this approach was used now, including Snapdragon 8cx (modified ARM Cortex-X1 + Cortex-A78 + Qualcomm IP)
-
Oryon (64bit): Snapdragon X Elite is now Nuvia's modifications made on top of ARM's design, combined with Qualcomm's IP & modifications. So instead of being an iteration of the previous Qualcomm Kryo-based generation (applying Qualcomm's modifications onto a newer vanilla ARM-design), Qualcomm obviously applied their modifications on top of Nuvia's Design.
-
So (over)simplified: Qualcomm did the same as they did before on Kryo, but replaced the foundation with an already-modified ARM-design from the Nuvia team (I don't want to play down the effort Qualcomm took for that, for sure the Nuvia team they acquired had a huge amount of work to merge their design with Qualcomm's modifications. But overall, they put their customization-process on top of the Nuvia-output instead of the ARM-output)
ARM's lawsuit is now obviously also about Qualcomm assuming that they don't need to license a new core-design from ARM because they acquired Nuvia, which achieves a comparable result using an older ARM-design.
Large portions of the Nuvia team were ex Apple A- and M-series silicon designers and builders, presumably the Snapdragon X Elite used some of the cross pollinated ideas originating from apple silicon.
Maybe not exact duplicate, but the ideas cross polinated.
Maybe not exact duplicate, but the ideas cross polinated.
I think the same applies to ARM's newer designs as well, with ARM Blackhawk and Cortex-X series achieving similar results as Nuvia's design.
My guess is that the work Nuvia did happened in close exchange with ARM, with each party owning their respective IP for commercialization (ARM for new generic designs, Nuvia for new server-centric designs).
My guess is that the work Nuvia did happened in close exchange with ARM, with each party owning their respective IP for commercialization (ARM for new generic designs, Nuvia for new server-centric designs).
Is it custom?
arm licenses the design of the cpu, etc. including any patents
interestingly i thought snapdragon x elite had qualcomm-proprietary hexagon vliw processing cores also, but it's not mentioned. that would clearly not be in arm's intellectual property, but it's strange these articles (i searched and read others besides that linked) overlook this.
Remember the x-elite is an SoC. What is being discussed is solely the CPU cores not any of the SoC-- which includes the q6 processor and thus hexagon.
I am almost tempted to buy one ASAP, in case ARM is successful; it would be an instant collectible!
I was always wondering what the plan for Arm was post-IPO, given that they're currently trading at a P/E of more than 500 and they've historically been a low-margin, high-volume supplier.
Here goes the pivot to become the next Intel, I guess?
Here goes the pivot to become the next Intel, I guess?
So this is why the LTT video on Snapdragon X had Arm blurred out XD
dupe with 90 comments:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40655516
Question from a layman on processor arch: how much better is Arm (SoC design, instruction set etc) compared to RISC-V?
[dupe]
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40655516
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40655516
To me this seems a real bad move by arm. They are showcasing to all their customers why they need to get of arm asap.
Unless ARM can show they are offering reasonable terms to make this legal. I know of other cases (I'm under NDA so don't ask for details) where a company has decided to switch course and the new one wasn't allowed under the old contract, but the contract was renegotiated to allow the switch.
>So, there you have it. Arm wants Qualcomm to stop shipping the product it's been contesting, but to be honest, that's not usually how these things end. It's unlikely that any product will be delayed from hitting shelves. These cases tend to end with one company giving a bucket of cash to the other, and everyone moves on.
Yeah, basically this. Though it seems rather risky of Qualcomm to essentially byte the hand that feeds them. If I was ARM, I'd consider not extending any licenses given to Qualcomm this.
Yeah, basically this. Though it seems rather risky of Qualcomm to essentially byte the hand that feeds them. If I was ARM, I'd consider not extending any licenses given to Qualcomm this.
I believe that Qualcomm, like Apple has a perpetual license that could be hard for Arm to terminate
It looks like ARM is hell-bent on making the case for RISC-V, or maybe even on getting someone to challenge their ISA patents in court (if Qualcomm's new chips are custom designs). Here's hoping this kind of greed won't pay off.
According to ARM’s complaint, they gave Nuvia exclusive licensing rights and IP access for specific purpose. Rather than work with arm to negotiate their own deal (or even access Nuvia’s derived IP in good faith) Qualcomm:
- tried to discretely transfer the licenses to a brand new entity
- worked directly with Nuvia’s cores, which Qualcomm’s own license did not permit
- kept at it after nuvia’s own license was terminated
- kept using the Arm trademark in their copy despite that also being linked to the licensing agreement
So from ARM’s point of view, Qualcomm are the greedy ones, and lazy to boot.
- tried to discretely transfer the licenses to a brand new entity
- worked directly with Nuvia’s cores, which Qualcomm’s own license did not permit
- kept at it after nuvia’s own license was terminated
- kept using the Arm trademark in their copy despite that also being linked to the licensing agreement
So from ARM’s point of view, Qualcomm are the greedy ones, and lazy to boot.
It seems weird to me to buy a company and then have to licence the company's own IP from a third party (AFAIK Qualcomm has an ARM ISA licence). Maybe Nuvia signed away exclusive rights to Arm, but at that point they'd be basically working for someone else's benefit.
Or maybe the cores aren't as custom as Qualcomm is telling us, and they contain some separately-licenced Arm tech.
Or maybe the cores aren't as custom as Qualcomm is telling us, and they contain some separately-licenced Arm tech.
I don't think it is weird.
Imagine you buy a non profit which has a special windows licence and then you use that licence for all your for profit windows devices, I don't think that that would be possible.
AFAIK ARM gave Nuvia a licence to use their ip (and access to their IP) for a specific market.
imho Qualcom has the right to use the nuvia ip as laid out in the licence agreement, but not for markets where no licence exists e.g. laptops.
Edit: removed some nonsensical text
Imagine you buy a non profit which has a special windows licence and then you use that licence for all your for profit windows devices, I don't think that that would be possible.
AFAIK ARM gave Nuvia a licence to use their ip (and access to their IP) for a specific market.
imho Qualcom has the right to use the nuvia ip as laid out in the licence agreement, but not for markets where no licence exists e.g. laptops.
Edit: removed some nonsensical text
That would make sense if this was about Arm IP, but it seems (reading between the lines here, sorry) that Arm feels that since Nuvia developed their cores under a specific licence from Arm, Qualcomm now needs to re-obtain that licence.
Like if you bought a non-profit and Microsoft told you thay you can't use your pre-existing Visual Studio licence to edit their code, but need to re-negotiate theirs.
Like if you bought a non-profit and Microsoft told you thay you can't use your pre-existing Visual Studio licence to edit their code, but need to re-negotiate theirs.
I agree with your firs point and I think that is the crux of the matter, but I goes a bit farther than only developed under a specific licence from Arm.
Arm seems to also have given Nuvia access to the technology behind their own cortex cores.
Arm sees anything that nuvia developed as a derivate of their IP and therefore subject to the agreed upon licencing term.
I think that removes some of the weird feeling around the idea of just sharing patents and entering a licensing agreement, but even if arm only gave patent(licences) rights, it would still mean that all of the products of nuvia would be based on that ip.
I don't think your example is applicable, in your situation the product is not a derivate of visual studio, but visual studio is just a tool.
I think this fits the situation better:
You want to write a custom video decoder and because you are small and new a bigger company allows you to use their super fast video decoder and some of their patents if you only sell your software for ios smartphones for a good price.
If you breach any of this, your licence to use their encoder as a base for your products expires and you can't use any of their patents.
Arm seems to also have given Nuvia access to the technology behind their own cortex cores.
Arm sees anything that nuvia developed as a derivate of their IP and therefore subject to the agreed upon licencing term.
I think that removes some of the weird feeling around the idea of just sharing patents and entering a licensing agreement, but even if arm only gave patent(licences) rights, it would still mean that all of the products of nuvia would be based on that ip.
I don't think your example is applicable, in your situation the product is not a derivate of visual studio, but visual studio is just a tool.
I think this fits the situation better:
You want to write a custom video decoder and because you are small and new a bigger company allows you to use their super fast video decoder and some of their patents if you only sell your software for ios smartphones for a good price.
If you breach any of this, your licence to use their encoder as a base for your products expires and you can't use any of their patents.
The license belonged to the acquired not the acquirer.
A more apt analogy would be if Microsoft gave the source code of Office to a research center and IBM then tried to resell their version of the office suite after buying the research center.
To me out feels very similar to how a spyware company might want to buy a VPN just for their personal data. Except that here there is an actual contract forbidding this.
My uninformed opinion is that Qualcomm is perfectly allowed to keep all the assets and artifacts that Nuvia produced, but is not allowed to create chips based on them
A more apt analogy would be if Microsoft gave the source code of Office to a research center and IBM then tried to resell their version of the office suite after buying the research center.
To me out feels very similar to how a spyware company might want to buy a VPN just for their personal data. Except that here there is an actual contract forbidding this.
My uninformed opinion is that Qualcomm is perfectly allowed to keep all the assets and artifacts that Nuvia produced, but is not allowed to create chips based on them
> The license belonged to the acquired not the acquirer.
No, the analogy above was correct. Qualcomm wants to use the license they already had.
No, the analogy above was correct. Qualcomm wants to use the license they already had.
Nuvia developed this IP based on a very narrow license they got from ARM to develop for the server market.
Qualcomm is trying to transfer everything Nuvia has developed under that specific narrow ARM-license to their own broad license and use it for all their products, but the license Nuvia had explicitly limits the use of IP created under this license and the license itself is non-transferrable.
So Qualcomm doesn't have Nuvia's ARM-license anymore, and their own ARM-license doesn't cover the IP of Nuvia.
ARM is arguing that the IP of Nuvia therefore does not belong to Qualcomm, and they seem to have the contract to support that.
Meanwhile, Qualcomm thinks that they have no need to license newer (comparable) architectures from ARM, because they acquired the IP from Nuvia...
Qualcomm is trying to transfer everything Nuvia has developed under that specific narrow ARM-license to their own broad license and use it for all their products, but the license Nuvia had explicitly limits the use of IP created under this license and the license itself is non-transferrable.
So Qualcomm doesn't have Nuvia's ARM-license anymore, and their own ARM-license doesn't cover the IP of Nuvia.
ARM is arguing that the IP of Nuvia therefore does not belong to Qualcomm, and they seem to have the contract to support that.
Meanwhile, Qualcomm thinks that they have no need to license newer (comparable) architectures from ARM, because they acquired the IP from Nuvia...
It's about customizable vs off the shelf in the article, not newer / older.
This article, although a year old, seemingly does a better job of explaining each company's position:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/arm-qualcomm-lawsu...
This article, although a year old, seemingly does a better job of explaining each company's position:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/arm-qualcomm-lawsu...
Yes, new vs. old is not part of the case, but the consequence of it for ARM.
ARM has designed new architectures (Blackhawk, Cortex-X) which achieve comparable performance to Nuvia's IP, but Qualcomm's assumption is that they can apply Nuvia's IP on top of their existing architecture without the need of licensing this new ARM design.
Outside of this case and any financial implications, this bears a big risk for ARM as well, as Qualcomm's heavily-customized architecture could become the de-facto standard for use-cases where generic ARM is already well-supported (i.e. Smartphones, Windows PCs, cars,...).
That's why it makes sense that ARM's contract with Nuvia restricted the license and any derived IP from being transferred to another party. ARM obviously supported Nuvia to develop ARM for servers, but applied conditions to that contract to mitigate the risk for that custom architecture to be applied in other (rather harmonized) use-cases.
ARM has designed new architectures (Blackhawk, Cortex-X) which achieve comparable performance to Nuvia's IP, but Qualcomm's assumption is that they can apply Nuvia's IP on top of their existing architecture without the need of licensing this new ARM design.
Outside of this case and any financial implications, this bears a big risk for ARM as well, as Qualcomm's heavily-customized architecture could become the de-facto standard for use-cases where generic ARM is already well-supported (i.e. Smartphones, Windows PCs, cars,...).
That's why it makes sense that ARM's contract with Nuvia restricted the license and any derived IP from being transferred to another party. ARM obviously supported Nuvia to develop ARM for servers, but applied conditions to that contract to mitigate the risk for that custom architecture to be applied in other (rather harmonized) use-cases.
And they also are actively trying to turn RISC-V into AArch64 but without any license fees.
If you even try to do any business with Qualcomm they make it incredibly clear they will go nuclear on anyone for the slightest breach of their contracts to protect their IP, but they completely fail to make this reciprocal. It is a classic case of what-I-do-is-valuable-what-you-do-is-trivial.
If you even try to do any business with Qualcomm they make it incredibly clear they will go nuclear on anyone for the slightest breach of their contracts to protect their IP, but they completely fail to make this reciprocal. It is a classic case of what-I-do-is-valuable-what-you-do-is-trivial.
> So from ARM’s point of view, Qualcomm are the greedy ones, and lazy to boot.
And from Qualcomm’s point of view, ARM are greedy and would like to double-dip Qualcomm for licensing fees and whatnot…
But you know what, they might both be right.
And from Qualcomm’s point of view, ARM are greedy and would like to double-dip Qualcomm for licensing fees and whatnot…
But you know what, they might both be right.
[deleted]
Unless the contract made with Nuvia states explicitly that a successor has to resign a new agreement, I doubt that Arm has any chance to win in the court.
According to the original complaint, both Nuvia’s IP and licenses were only transferable with ARM’s agreement.
That doesn't matter; ARM's argument is, that the Nuvia IP is bound to Nuvia's license and cannot be used with a different license (which Qualcomm has, without limitation to server).
License terms like this change all the time. The real question is why ARM isn't offering reasonable terms to allow this - or are/did they and it was rejected?
Probably a negotiating tactic. ARM is starting out by asking for something extreme (halting Elite X sales and destroying Nuvia's IP), when what they really want is for Qualcomm to renegotiate a new license for the IP with more money going to ARM.
I believe that Arm's argument is more in the other direction, that is that Qualcomm license does not cover IP developed by Nuvia.
It’s both, and more:
- Qualcomm’s license doesn’t provide for using third-party developments
- Nuvia’s license doesn’t allow using it on other platforms than servers
- Nuvia’s derived IP is not transferable without ARM agreement
- Qualcomm’s license doesn’t provide for using third-party developments
- Nuvia’s license doesn’t allow using it on other platforms than servers
- Nuvia’s derived IP is not transferable without ARM agreement
What I was trying to say is that the last point
>- Nuvia’s derived IP is not transferable without ARM agreement
Binds Nuvia and Nuvia's license, not Qualcomm.
An analogy I can think of is how sometimes luxury brands give gifts or discounts to celebrities for marketing purposes with contract that forbid resales. (eg [0])
In this case the brand can only sue entities it had a specific contract with.
Back to the case at hand I believe that unless Qualcomm license includes a term along the lines of "You cannot buy Arm's IP unless Arm pre-approves it"[1] to hold Qualcomm culpable of this transfer.
To my understanding Arm used this proibition mainly to terminate Nuvia's license
[0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=john+cena+sells+car+lawsuit+ford&t...
[1] AFAIK this line might be in their license. I obviously do not have specific knowledge.
>- Nuvia’s derived IP is not transferable without ARM agreement
Binds Nuvia and Nuvia's license, not Qualcomm.
An analogy I can think of is how sometimes luxury brands give gifts or discounts to celebrities for marketing purposes with contract that forbid resales. (eg [0])
In this case the brand can only sue entities it had a specific contract with.
Back to the case at hand I believe that unless Qualcomm license includes a term along the lines of "You cannot buy Arm's IP unless Arm pre-approves it"[1] to hold Qualcomm culpable of this transfer.
To my understanding Arm used this proibition mainly to terminate Nuvia's license
[0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=john+cena+sells+car+lawsuit+ford&t...
[1] AFAIK this line might be in their license. I obviously do not have specific knowledge.
With comments like this you should be prefixing it with:
"I am a Patent Attorney with 20+ years experience in complex IT contracts"
Or not posting at all.
"I am a Patent Attorney with 20+ years experience in complex IT contracts"
Or not posting at all.
Well, are you? ;)
No. Which is why I am not commenting on the merits of a contract dispute.
Definitive statements should demand some relevant experience.
Definitive statements should demand some relevant experience.
You don't need to be a lawyer to make a definitive statement. And a lawyer wouldn't make a definitive statement on a forum like this anyway. A lawyer will know more than random lay people (ie me!) which makes what they say have more weight.
Even if a lawyer comments though their comments will be in context of what every country(s) they work in. International contract law is very complex and nobody can tell you how it works in every country.
Even if a lawyer comments though their comments will be in context of what every country(s) they work in. International contract law is very complex and nobody can tell you how it works in every country.
People can have their own opinions on things. You don't need 20 years experience to have an opinion of patent law, even an informed one.
Does this make Risk V more attractive?
It's why Qualcomm is investing into RISC V because ARM is trying to burn the house down on many fronts.
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2023/08/leading-semic...
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2023/08/leading-semic...
Wow. Imagine an American company did this.
People world admire then and the government would bail them out.
People world admire then and the government would bail them out.
I for one am just waiting for RISC-V to take over.
Qualcomm would just probably develop their own proprietary cores with patented/proprietary extensions (because why wouldn’t they?). Crippling the ability of other RISC-v chips to run the software built primarily Qualcomm CPUs. Now at least there is ARM keeping them somewhat in check..
Cheap and open is going to win in this situation, even if what you described happens. Nobody wants to pay the piper in terms of licensing fees.
So do intel and AMD.
It is time to destroy ARM
According to Arm the Nuvia license is contractually tied to server/datacenter usage, while Qualcomm's acquisition of Nuvia packaged these server cores into "Oryon" for PC use in the Snapdragon X Elite SoC and intends to use them in smartphones too, breaching the original agreement.
Here's a better source: https://www.heise.de/en/news/ARM-torpedoes-Windows-on-ARM-De...