3 ms·

According to the original complaint, both Nuvia’s IP and licenses were only transferable with ARM’s agreement.

vetinari 2y ago
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).
- bluGill 2y ago
  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?
  - ac29 2y ago
    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.
- afiori 2y ago
  I 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 ago
    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
    - afiori 2y ago
      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=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.

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).

bluGill 2y ago
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?
- ac29 2y ago
  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.
afiori 2y ago
I 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 ago
  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
  - afiori 2y ago
    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=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.