> It really doesn't. IP is very specific. > If you are an architecture licensee of ARM, are you using / or paying for ARM's IP? > If you are designing your 3G

> It really doesn't. IP is very specific. > If you are an architecture licensee of ARM, are you using / or paying for ARM's IP? > If you are designing your 3G modem, using CDMA, ( Whether it is WCDMA, CDMA 2000 or TDS-CDMA ) without using Qualcomm Modem or anything Qualcomm designed hardware blocks, are you using Qualcomm's IP? The hardware space overloads the term to mean RTL or lower abstract representations of circuit layouts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_intellectual_property_core https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_intellectual_pro... > We are argue whether Apple needs to pay for Tile based deferred rendering ( You can search the term mentioned on Apple's Dev Reference document ) to IMG, since relevant IP could be obtained with ARM. ( Arguably with cross patent argument with IMG, but anyway let's ignore that ). How are you using technology from IMG PowerVR, even with its name on it, and consider yourself not using any IP from IMG, when the patent itself has not expired. Quote. > "It will no longer use the Group's intellectual property in its new products in 15 months to two years time." There's not really an argument on if anyone has to pay anyone for TBDR; they don't. This comment thread is on the software for a chip that was a TBDR and is older than max patent length. The concept is in the public domain now. Since this chip came out in 1995, TBDRs have been fair game for nearly seven years now.