4 ms·

I don't think it is weird. Imagine you buy a non profit which has a special windows licence and then you use that licence for all your for profit windows devic

by bpfrh 2y ago

I don't think it is weird. Imagine you buy a non profit which has a special windows licence and then you use that licence for all your for profit windows devices, I don't think that that would be possible. AFAIK ARM gave Nuvia a licence to use their ip (and access to their IP) for a specific market. imho Qualcom has the right to use the nuvia ip as laid out in the licence agreement, but not for markets where no licence exists e.g. laptops. Edit: removed some nonsensical text

dvdkon 2y ago
That would make sense if this was about Arm IP, but it seems (reading between the lines here, sorry) that Arm feels that since Nuvia developed their cores under a specific licence from Arm, Qualcomm now needs to re-obtain that licence. Like if you bought a non-profit and Microsoft told you thay you can't use your pre-existing Visual Studio licence to edit their code, but need to re-negotiate theirs.
- afiori 2y ago
  The license belonged to the acquired not the acquirer. A more apt analogy would be if Microsoft gave the source code of Office to a research center and IBM then tried to resell their version of the office suite after buying the research center. To me out feels very similar to how a spyware company might want to buy a VPN just for their personal data. Except that here there is an actual contract forbidding this. My uninformed opinion is that Qualcomm is perfectly allowed to keep all the assets and artifacts that Nuvia produced, but is not allowed to create chips based on them
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > The license belonged to the acquired not the acquirer. No, the analogy above was correct. Qualcomm wants to use the license they already had.
- bpfrh 2y ago
  I agree with your firs point and I think that is the crux of the matter, but I goes a bit farther than only developed under a specific licence from Arm. Arm seems to also have given Nuvia access to the technology behind their own cortex cores. Arm sees anything that nuvia developed as a derivate of their IP and therefore subject to the agreed upon licencing term. I think that removes some of the weird feeling around the idea of just sharing patents and entering a licensing agreement, but even if arm only gave patent(licences) rights, it would still mean that all of the products of nuvia would be based on that ip. I don't think your example is applicable, in your situation the product is not a derivate of visual studio, but visual studio is just a tool. I think this fits the situation better: You want to write a custom video decoder and because you are small and new a bigger company allows you to use their super fast video decoder and some of their patents if you only sell your software for ios smartphones for a good price. If you breach any of this, your licence to use their encoder as a base for your products expires and you can't use any of their patents.

by bpfrh 2y ago

dvdkon 2y ago

That would make sense if this was about Arm IP, but it seems (reading between the lines here, sorry) that Arm feels that since Nuvia developed their cores under a specific licence from Arm, Qualcomm now needs to re-obtain that licence. Like if you bought a non-profit and Microsoft told you thay you can't use your pre-existing Visual Studio licence to edit their code, but need to re-negotiate theirs.

afiori 2y ago
The license belonged to the acquired not the acquirer. A more apt analogy would be if Microsoft gave the source code of Office to a research center and IBM then tried to resell their version of the office suite after buying the research center. To me out feels very similar to how a spyware company might want to buy a VPN just for their personal data. Except that here there is an actual contract forbidding this. My uninformed opinion is that Qualcomm is perfectly allowed to keep all the assets and artifacts that Nuvia produced, but is not allowed to create chips based on them
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  > The license belonged to the acquired not the acquirer. No, the analogy above was correct. Qualcomm wants to use the license they already had.
bpfrh 2y ago
I agree with your firs point and I think that is the crux of the matter, but I goes a bit farther than only developed under a specific licence from Arm. Arm seems to also have given Nuvia access to the technology behind their own cortex cores. Arm sees anything that nuvia developed as a derivate of their IP and therefore subject to the agreed upon licencing term. I think that removes some of the weird feeling around the idea of just sharing patents and entering a licensing agreement, but even if arm only gave patent(licences) rights, it would still mean that all of the products of nuvia would be based on that ip. I don't think your example is applicable, in your situation the product is not a derivate of visual studio, but visual studio is just a tool. I think this fits the situation better: You want to write a custom video decoder and because you are small and new a bigger company allows you to use their super fast video decoder and some of their patents if you only sell your software for ios smartphones for a good price. If you breach any of this, your licence to use their encoder as a base for your products expires and you can't use any of their patents.