3 ms·
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.
by chad1n 2y ago
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.
- masklinn 2y agoAccording to the original complaint, both Nuvia’s IP and licenses were only transferable with ARM’s agreement.
- vetinari 2y agoThat 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).
- bluGill 2y agoLicense 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?
- ac29 2y agoProbably 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.
- afiori 2y agoI believe that Arm's argument is more in the other direction, that is that Qualcomm license does not cover IP developed by Nuvia.
- masklinn 2y agoIt’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
- afiori 2y agoWhat 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=ffab&ia=web 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.
- threeseed 2y agoWith 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.
- imp0cat 2y agoWell, are you? ;)
- threeseed 2y agoNo. Which is why I am not commenting on the merits of a contract dispute. Definitive statements should demand some relevant experience.
- bluGill 2y agoYou 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.
- supermatt 2y agoPeople 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.