3 ms·

It's not really contracts 101, it's a question of what's in the contract that ARM is relying on. They're basically saying you can't transfer any IP without thei

It's not really contracts 101, it's a question of what's in the contract that ARM is relying on. They're basically saying you can't transfer any IP without their permission. Who would agree to those terms, if creating IP is your business, and how could Qualcomm miss that if it was clearly stated in the contract? I just can't see Qualcomm's lawyers flubbing this one. They are an extremely aggressive company when it comes to IP and the law. It's not like they don't have top notch IP lawyers. If ARM persists in this stupidity my money is on Qualcomm tearing them a new one.

robert_foss 4y ago
Apparently having approval be a requirement is standard for ARM ISA licenses, it would probably not seem strange to them. Besides, Nuvia would have been their own company at the time of signing this contract.
scarface74 4y ago
Who would approve of those terms? A tiny startup that needs an ARM license to create ARM server chips. Also see a multi trillion dollar company that has to deal with onerous terms for cellular chips from Qualcomm because there is no viable alternative.
salawat 4y ago
I'm still getting contract 101 vibes. As a software person, it's taken me a bit of time to absorb the difference between the idea pf IP in software, and in hardware, but once you bridge that, it does simplify things a bit. ARM seems to be the AWS of hardware IP cores. It is very much the case that if someone is basing a design off their base designs, that comes with granting ARM a thumb on the scale, and a place at the negotiating table if two of their (ARM's) customers engage in an M&A. Qualcomm licensed stuff for handsets. Nuvia licensed stuff for servers. The new composite entity is still constrained by both contracts, which requires an IP firewall. If, on the other hand, Qualcomm wanted Nuvia due to their server core IP, and does not intend to merely consume that company's blackboxed output, then they need to renegotiate terms with ARM, either acquiring a second license for Qualcomm proper, or paying whatever fees are customary for a transferrable license. In the end, it's unsexy paperwork. But I get it though. If you dig into semiconductor/hardware lit, like things on logic locking, that entire industry of fabless semi-conductor fabrication has a Jesus Nut in terms of license enforcement. The prospect of physical design/mask theft or unauthorized design reproduction in a way substantially different, and much more tangible than software is. It really annoys me that someone somewhere describes this as "piracy", because it isn't really, it's straight up breach of contract/unauthorized use of physical design masks. Like getting the printing plates from a mint. Frankly, I've been skeptical of the entire thing, because it does basically rely on manufactured scarcity/info asymmetry created and maintained through legal means, but no one exactly asked either for my input, or seems open to being told not to try to monetize something you can only collect on by essentially parking lawyers at strategic points in the business lifecycle. From a theoretical system point of view it works. From an execution point of view... Not so much.

robert_foss 4y ago

Apparently having approval be a requirement is standard for ARM ISA licenses, it would probably not seem strange to them. Besides, Nuvia would have been their own company at the time of signing this contract.

scarface74 4y ago

Who would approve of those terms? A tiny startup that needs an ARM license to create ARM server chips. Also see a multi trillion dollar company that has to deal with onerous terms for cellular chips from Qualcomm because there is no viable alternative.

salawat 4y ago

I'm still getting contract 101 vibes. As a software person, it's taken me a bit of time to absorb the difference between the idea pf IP in software, and in hardware, but once you bridge that, it does simplify things a bit. ARM seems to be the AWS of hardware IP cores. It is very much the case that if someone is basing a design off their base designs, that comes with granting ARM a thumb on the scale, and a place at the negotiating table if two of their (ARM's) customers engage in an M&A. Qualcomm licensed stuff for handsets. Nuvia licensed stuff for servers. The new composite entity is still constrained by both contracts, which requires an IP firewall. If, on the other hand, Qualcomm wanted Nuvia due to their server core IP, and does not intend to merely consume that company's blackboxed output, then they need to renegotiate terms with ARM, either acquiring a second license for Qualcomm proper, or paying whatever fees are customary for a transferrable license. In the end, it's unsexy paperwork. But I get it though. If you dig into semiconductor/hardware lit, like things on logic locking, that entire industry of fabless semi-conductor fabrication has a Jesus Nut in terms of license enforcement. The prospect of physical design/mask theft or unauthorized design reproduction in a way substantially different, and much more tangible than software is. It really annoys me that someone somewhere describes this as "piracy", because it isn't really, it's straight up breach of contract/unauthorized use of physical design masks. Like getting the printing plates from a mint. Frankly, I've been skeptical of the entire thing, because it does basically rely on manufactured scarcity/info asymmetry created and maintained through legal means, but no one exactly asked either for my input, or seems open to being told not to try to monetize something you can only collect on by essentially parking lawyers at strategic points in the business lifecycle. From a theoretical system point of view it works. From an execution point of view... Not so much.