3 ms·

I don’t get it. Qualcomm has an architecture license. Nuvia had an architecture license and developed the new Oryon CPU core with it. Now Qualcomm bought Nuvia

I don’t get it. Qualcomm has an architecture license. Nuvia had an architecture license and developed the new Oryon CPU core with it. Now Qualcomm bought Nuvia, but ARM says it can’t use Nuvia's core with its own arch license - it must pay a second time.

xinayder 2y ago
My guess is that, when Nuvia was bought off by Qualcomm, the license from ARM was no longer valid, since Nuvia ceased to exist, or rather, the license is non-transferable.
- andyferris 2y ago
  Is that the way acquisitions really work? The legal entity usually persists, it’s just wholly controlled by another.
colechristensen 2y ago
The conflict is over whether the license is transferable. Arm never would have sold that license to Qualcomm, especially with those terms, especially for that purpose. Qualcomm bought a company because they had a license arm wouldn’t sell them. It comes down to subtleties in the contracts.
- Tuna-Fish 2y ago
  No, Qualcomm had already acquired an arch license from ARM, they had one before the purchase. The issue is that the Nuvia arch license had extra terms that the Qualcomm one didn't. ARM claims that the IP created under the Nuvia license cannot be transferred to be under the Qualcomm license. Qualcomm contends that it can.
  - wyldfire 2y ago
    > No, Qualcomm had already acquired an arch license from ARM, they had one before the purchase I know they were making their own cores several years ago but for a bunch of design cycles they used ARM reference cores. during that time they were still an architectural licensee? Or they let it lapse and then re-licensed just before/after the Nuvia acquisition?
  - colechristensen 2y ago
    > The issue is that the Nuvia arch license had extra terms that the Qualcomm one didn't. > Qualcomm bought a company because they had a license arm wouldn’t sell them. These statements aren't different. You're disagreeing by slightly rewording what I wrote.
    - Tuna-Fish 2y ago
      No. Qualcomm bought Nuvia not because they wanted the license Nuvia had, because that license was server-only, with a "don't compete with our stuff on mobile" carveout, but because they wanted the IP. The license that Qualcomm has is strictly better than what Nuvia had, and no-one wants the Nuvia license.
- pantalaimon 2y ago
  > Qualcomm bought a company because they had a license arm wouldn’t sell them. No, Qualcomm bought a company because they developed a core that’s better than anything ARM or Qualcomm had in it’s portfolio.
- m000 2y ago
  To me, this sounds like a major blunder from the part of ARM's legal team. Acquisitions and mergers happen all the time. How it happened and there was not a clause in the licencing agreement to explicitly cover these cases? They probably pay 7-figures for some of their legal team that failed to see this coming.
  - drcongo 2y ago
    Is there no clause? From what I can gather a clause like that is exactly the source of the dispute.
  - colechristensen 2y ago
    >How it happened and there was not a clause in the licensing agreement to explicitly cover these cases? There were license clauses, the two companies disagree about what they meant, they're currently suing each other over them. This article is about that lawsuit and recent developments.
bdavbdav 2y ago
The issue is the application limitation of the license. ARM granted Nuvia the license for server applications. Typically that license transfers, but ARM is taking umbrage with Qualcomm using the Nuvia developed tech (licensed for server applications) and applying it to consumer / handheld.

xinayder 2y ago

My guess is that, when Nuvia was bought off by Qualcomm, the license from ARM was no longer valid, since Nuvia ceased to exist, or rather, the license is non-transferable.

andyferris 2y ago
Is that the way acquisitions really work? The legal entity usually persists, it’s just wholly controlled by another.

colechristensen 2y ago

The conflict is over whether the license is transferable. Arm never would have sold that license to Qualcomm, especially with those terms, especially for that purpose. Qualcomm bought a company because they had a license arm wouldn’t sell them. It comes down to subtleties in the contracts.

Tuna-Fish 2y ago
No, Qualcomm had already acquired an arch license from ARM, they had one before the purchase. The issue is that the Nuvia arch license had extra terms that the Qualcomm one didn't. ARM claims that the IP created under the Nuvia license cannot be transferred to be under the Qualcomm license. Qualcomm contends that it can.
- wyldfire 2y ago
  > No, Qualcomm had already acquired an arch license from ARM, they had one before the purchase I know they were making their own cores several years ago but for a bunch of design cycles they used ARM reference cores. during that time they were still an architectural licensee? Or they let it lapse and then re-licensed just before/after the Nuvia acquisition?
- colechristensen 2y ago
  > The issue is that the Nuvia arch license had extra terms that the Qualcomm one didn't. > Qualcomm bought a company because they had a license arm wouldn’t sell them. These statements aren't different. You're disagreeing by slightly rewording what I wrote.
  - Tuna-Fish 2y ago
    No. Qualcomm bought Nuvia not because they wanted the license Nuvia had, because that license was server-only, with a "don't compete with our stuff on mobile" carveout, but because they wanted the IP. The license that Qualcomm has is strictly better than what Nuvia had, and no-one wants the Nuvia license.
pantalaimon 2y ago
> Qualcomm bought a company because they had a license arm wouldn’t sell them. No, Qualcomm bought a company because they developed a core that’s better than anything ARM or Qualcomm had in it’s portfolio.
m000 2y ago
To me, this sounds like a major blunder from the part of ARM's legal team. Acquisitions and mergers happen all the time. How it happened and there was not a clause in the licencing agreement to explicitly cover these cases? They probably pay 7-figures for some of their legal team that failed to see this coming.
- drcongo 2y ago
  Is there no clause? From what I can gather a clause like that is exactly the source of the dispute.
- colechristensen 2y ago
  >How it happened and there was not a clause in the licensing agreement to explicitly cover these cases? There were license clauses, the two companies disagree about what they meant, they're currently suing each other over them. This article is about that lawsuit and recent developments.

bdavbdav 2y ago

The issue is the application limitation of the license. ARM granted Nuvia the license for server applications. Typically that license transfers, but ARM is taking umbrage with Qualcomm using the Nuvia developed tech (licensed for server applications) and applying it to consumer / handheld.