6 ms·

Do you have a source not behind a "cookie wall"? I remember Qualcomm making phone SoCs with custom cores some years back. Why is it suddenly an issue now? Or w

by dvdkon 2y ago

Do you have a source not behind a "cookie wall"? I remember Qualcomm making phone SoCs with custom cores some years back. Why is it suddenly an issue now? Or were those just rebrands of tweaked Cortex designs? EDIT: From reading the Reuters article [0] it seems that Arm's argument is that since Nuvia's cores were developed under a now-terminated licence, Qualcomm doesn't have a right to use them, their other licences notwithstanding. [0]: https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2024-06-10/analysis-arm-qualcomm-legal-battle-seen-disrupting-ai-powered-pc-wave https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2024-06-10/a...

jraph 2y ago
(The page displays fine with js disabled)
bpfrh 2y ago
The argument is that Nuvia got a licence for server usage and development support from arm to develop custom arm processors. Qualcom now wants to use technology developt under a specific licence agreement in use cases not covered in that licence agreement, because they have general licence agreement with arm. The question is: Does the general licence agreement from qualcom override the specific licence agreement between Nuvia and arm for this specific technology. I found some sources which partially explains this: https://www.ft.com/content/5535ce39-ab22-497a-a8d6-52a690d1b446 https://www.ft.com/content/5535ce39-ab22-497a-a8d6-52a690d1b... https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/01/why-arms-lawsuit-against-qualcomm-is-a-big-deal.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/01/why-arms-lawsuit-against-qua... (...Nuvia, a startup founded by former Apple and Google engineers, was developing a server chip with custom cores under an architecture license. It also had access to Arm’s core designs....)
- rcxdude 2y ago
  I suspect it's going to boil down to whether any of the IP Nuvia had access to but Qualcomm did not made it into the cores. But it could also easily come down to some details of the wording of the contracts in terms of how that license is granted. Either way, this request for the destruction of laptops at the early stage is clearly a negotiation point: if the court grants it, which seems unlikely, it'll be a strong bargening chip for a negotiation a settlement in cash/royalties/etc, not the actual goal of ARM.
  - bpfrh 2y ago
    Agreed, I think on your last point ARM is also trying for a fast case/settlement as they are in a difficult position: They don't want to have a long fight expensive fight with qualcom and make other arm companies uneasy about investing in the arm platform. They also don't want to open the door to have companies buy their IP for "cheap" by buying smaller companies with special arm licences instead of directly negotiating with them.
    - giancarlostoro 2y ago
      > They also don't want to open the door to have companies buy their IP for "cheap" by buying smaller companies with special arm licences instead of directly negotiating with them. Is it really ARMs IP or the IP developed by the smaller company. My understanding is ARM is like a blueprint, and you then make changes as needed.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - bpfrh 2y ago
        That kinda depends on your licencing agreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture_family#Licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture_family#Licens... You can either licence a IP Core block(Core, gpu,etc) to embedd in your device, our you can buy an architect licence and design your own cores as long as they comply with the arm architecture. AFAIK the IP is actually buildable cores which arm get's by partnering with companies to get it right, e.g. there is not that much difference between them fully building them in house and selling them vs. letting partners build them(for the end user).
      - lokar 2y ago
        It they (reasonably) charge for the blueprint based on what you say you are building. The only reason small companies can get a license on easy terms is because of the narrow planned use.
Piraty 2y ago
(The page displays fine with ublock-origin + blocked 3rd-party {scripts,frames} + "cookie notices" filter lists)
rickdeckard 2y ago
"Snapdragon X Elite" is based on the IP Qualcomm gained from the Acquisition of Nuvia, who developed this IP based on a very narrow license they got from ARM to develop for the server market. Qualcomm is trying to transfer everything Nuvia has developed under that specific narrow ARM-license to the broad license of Qualcomm and use it for "powering flagship smartphones, next-generation laptops, and digital cockpits, as well as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, extended reality and infrastructure networking solutions" ARM has filed a lawsuit that this was never in scope of the license of Nuvia, the court-ruling is still pending on that one... The related court-filing is worth a read: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22273195/arm-v-qualcomm-99-9999-stamped-complaint.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22273195/arm-v-qualco...
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  Moreover, Nuvia's ARM-licenses and everything produced from it became invalid with Qualcomm's acquisition, so the tech produced from it is simply not licensed anymore. In detail, the dispute goes like this: 1. ARM gave a broad range of licenses to Nuvia to develop an ARM-based architecture for use in servers, with a license-fee to match this objective (probably a favorable one for ARM, because it's a field ARM aims to expand): "Nuvia’s licensing fees and royalty rates reflected the anticipated scope and nature of Nuvia’s use of the Arm architecture. The licenses safeguarded Arm’s rights and expectations by prohibiting assignment without Arm’s consent, regardless of whether a contemplated assignee had its own Arm licenses." 2. Qualcomm acquires Nuvia with the intention to use the developed IP for (quote): "powering flagship smartphones, next-generation laptops, and digital cockpits, as well as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, extended reality and infrastructure networking solutions" Sounds quite reasonable if the claim is validated: ARM gave favorable conditions to a startup which aimed to compete in a field where ARM is weak (servers). Now the biggest customer of the strongest revenue-market of ARM (mobile devices) has acquired that startup to repurpose their development and license to use in mobile devices, PCs, automotive, VR,...
  - Tuna-Fish 2y ago
    The part you are leaving out that before Qualcomm acquired Nuvia, they already owned a blanket license from ARM with no such use restrictions. Their claim is that they can use the IP they acquired under this older license. Which side is right or wrong here depends on the exact wording of the license between ARM and Qualcomm, and since this is not publicly known, no-one outside those companies knows which side is in the right.
brevhtff 2y ago
> Do you have a source not behind a "cookie wall"? Ignore it, use technical measures to overcome it, disregard it. If a stranger came up to you in the street and demanded $5 to continue looking at them, you’d tell them to fuck off (in so many words). You certainly wouldn’t avert your eyes, nor would you cough up. Fuck these bozos and their shrink wrap licenses and their cookie popups and all.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  If someone did that, I would probably leave them alone, and if someone wanted to use them as a source, I would probably at least ask if they knew anybody more reasonable.

by dvdkon 2y ago

jraph 2y ago

(The page displays fine with js disabled)

bpfrh 2y ago

The argument is that Nuvia got a licence for server usage and development support from arm to develop custom arm processors. Qualcom now wants to use technology developt under a specific licence agreement in use cases not covered in that licence agreement, because they have general licence agreement with arm. The question is: Does the general licence agreement from qualcom override the specific licence agreement between Nuvia and arm for this specific technology. I found some sources which partially explains this: https://www.ft.com/content/5535ce39-ab22-497a-a8d6-52a690d1b446 https://www.ft.com/content/5535ce39-ab22-497a-a8d6-52a690d1b... https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/01/why-arms-lawsuit-against-qualcomm-is-a-big-deal.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/01/why-arms-lawsuit-against-qua... (...Nuvia, a startup founded by former Apple and Google engineers, was developing a server chip with custom cores under an architecture license. It also had access to Arm’s core designs....)

rcxdude 2y ago
I suspect it's going to boil down to whether any of the IP Nuvia had access to but Qualcomm did not made it into the cores. But it could also easily come down to some details of the wording of the contracts in terms of how that license is granted. Either way, this request for the destruction of laptops at the early stage is clearly a negotiation point: if the court grants it, which seems unlikely, it'll be a strong bargening chip for a negotiation a settlement in cash/royalties/etc, not the actual goal of ARM.
- bpfrh 2y ago
  Agreed, I think on your last point ARM is also trying for a fast case/settlement as they are in a difficult position: They don't want to have a long fight expensive fight with qualcom and make other arm companies uneasy about investing in the arm platform. They also don't want to open the door to have companies buy their IP for "cheap" by buying smaller companies with special arm licences instead of directly negotiating with them.
  - giancarlostoro 2y ago
    > They also don't want to open the door to have companies buy their IP for "cheap" by buying smaller companies with special arm licences instead of directly negotiating with them. Is it really ARMs IP or the IP developed by the smaller company. My understanding is ARM is like a blueprint, and you then make changes as needed.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - bpfrh 2y ago
      That kinda depends on your licencing agreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture_family#Licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture_family#Licens... You can either licence a IP Core block(Core, gpu,etc) to embedd in your device, our you can buy an architect licence and design your own cores as long as they comply with the arm architecture. AFAIK the IP is actually buildable cores which arm get's by partnering with companies to get it right, e.g. there is not that much difference between them fully building them in house and selling them vs. letting partners build them(for the end user).
    - lokar 2y ago
      It they (reasonably) charge for the blueprint based on what you say you are building. The only reason small companies can get a license on easy terms is because of the narrow planned use.

Piraty 2y ago

(The page displays fine with ublock-origin + blocked 3rd-party {scripts,frames} + "cookie notices" filter lists)

rickdeckard 2y ago

"Snapdragon X Elite" is based on the IP Qualcomm gained from the Acquisition of Nuvia, who developed this IP based on a very narrow license they got from ARM to develop for the server market. Qualcomm is trying to transfer everything Nuvia has developed under that specific narrow ARM-license to the broad license of Qualcomm and use it for "powering flagship smartphones, next-generation laptops, and digital cockpits, as well as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, extended reality and infrastructure networking solutions" ARM has filed a lawsuit that this was never in scope of the license of Nuvia, the court-ruling is still pending on that one... The related court-filing is worth a read: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22273195/arm-v-qualcomm-99-9999-stamped-complaint.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22273195/arm-v-qualco...

rickdeckard 2y ago
Moreover, Nuvia's ARM-licenses and everything produced from it became invalid with Qualcomm's acquisition, so the tech produced from it is simply not licensed anymore. In detail, the dispute goes like this: 1. ARM gave a broad range of licenses to Nuvia to develop an ARM-based architecture for use in servers, with a license-fee to match this objective (probably a favorable one for ARM, because it's a field ARM aims to expand): "Nuvia’s licensing fees and royalty rates reflected the anticipated scope and nature of Nuvia’s use of the Arm architecture. The licenses safeguarded Arm’s rights and expectations by prohibiting assignment without Arm’s consent, regardless of whether a contemplated assignee had its own Arm licenses." 2. Qualcomm acquires Nuvia with the intention to use the developed IP for (quote): "powering flagship smartphones, next-generation laptops, and digital cockpits, as well as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, extended reality and infrastructure networking solutions" Sounds quite reasonable if the claim is validated: ARM gave favorable conditions to a startup which aimed to compete in a field where ARM is weak (servers). Now the biggest customer of the strongest revenue-market of ARM (mobile devices) has acquired that startup to repurpose their development and license to use in mobile devices, PCs, automotive, VR,...
- Tuna-Fish 2y ago
  The part you are leaving out that before Qualcomm acquired Nuvia, they already owned a blanket license from ARM with no such use restrictions. Their claim is that they can use the IP they acquired under this older license. Which side is right or wrong here depends on the exact wording of the license between ARM and Qualcomm, and since this is not publicly known, no-one outside those companies knows which side is in the right.

brevhtff 2y ago

> Do you have a source not behind a "cookie wall"? Ignore it, use technical measures to overcome it, disregard it. If a stranger came up to you in the street and demanded $5 to continue looking at them, you’d tell them to fuck off (in so many words). You certainly wouldn’t avert your eyes, nor would you cough up. Fuck these bozos and their shrink wrap licenses and their cookie popups and all.

bee_rider 2y ago
If someone did that, I would probably leave them alone, and if someone wanted to use them as a source, I would probably at least ask if they knew anybody more reasonable.