6 ms·

"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

"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.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Yeah, that's the weird part. Nuvia's ARM license (now owned by Qualcomm) may be invalid for Qualcomm non-server use. But how can Nuvia IP be invalid? Presumably ARM never owned Nuvia's IP: why would they have negotiated that, given they already had license control? Ergo, Qualcomm owns Nuvia IP without a Nuvia ARM license. ... but that's fine, because Qualcomm has a Qualcomm ARM license. "I revoke your license, so you can't sell your IP to a willing third party" is a pretty dangerous precedent. You should be perfectly free to do so, to the extent that your buyer would also need their own license.
    - chx 2y ago
      How can Nuvia IP be invalid? Well, that's the beauty of Intellectual Property: it's not really a property it's a weird legal construct. Arm argues the entire Nuvia IP should have disappeared because the license allowing it to exist was voided when Qualcomm bought Nuvia. And Qualcomm had no legal right to move the IP on the foundation of their ARM license. They argue Qualcomm should've negotiated for a new license to use Nuvia IP. Whether they are right or not is up for the courts to decide but they make a legally sound argument without a doubt. If this makes no sense then here's a simple example: a DVD is not property, it's intellectual property. If it were property then region locks couldn't exist. Compare it to a book. You buy a book in London, no one stops you from reading it in New York, it's your property. Absurdity is the name of the game: in the DeCSS trial it was argued Johansen trespassed on his own computer. Edit: ah, I have a better, simpler explanation: Arm and Nuvia made a contract. Qualcomm bought Nuvia. Arm argues Qualcomm violated the terms of the contract. That's it.
gpm 2y ago
I encourage people to read the court-filings in any case if they're interested in the case. But I'd also caution people new to this that lawyers are extremely good at making their case seem obviously right even when it isn't. If you're not nodding along going "that seems right" when you read the argument in a complaint the lawyers either have a really bad case, or they screwed up (or in rare cases they're making technical arguments that they think will seem right to the judge even if they don't seem right to lay people). It's better to wait for a chance to read the response from the other side before agreeing that the side you are reading is right. In this case this lawsuit is from 2022, we have the responses already :) Here's the docket that lists all the filings: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64938776/arm-ltd-v-qualcomm-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64938776/arm-ltd-v-qual... And to extract the relevant items from that docket Here's the response, at a minimum if you find ARMs complaint convincing you should read this: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.79892/gov.uscourts.ded.79892.19.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798... Here's ARMs response to the response: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.79892/gov.uscourts.ded.79892.21.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798... From a reasonably quick scan it looks like everything else in this suit is about discovery, scheduling, and whether it should be a jury a trial or just heard in front of a judge. Scheduling note: A 5-day Jury Trial is set for 12/16/2024
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  Also interesting, seeing how the defendants are expanding the scope of the lawsuit to delay its progress and keep everyone busy: - Qualcomm requesting the court to order ARM to provide ALL Architecture License Contracts with ANY party so Qualcomm can judge whether they are in violation of THEIR contract [1] - Apple requesting the court to NOT share this information, as they are not relevant to this case and a customer of BOTH ARM and Qualcomm [2] - Qualcomm trying to subpoena other licensees Apple, MediaTek, Google, Intel, etc. to court [3] Meanwhile Snapdragon X Elite pre-production is ramping up, Qualcomm-customers finalize their Hardware-design, Microsoft putting all their weight onto that architecture. So by end of 2024 the products are already launched, products are shipped and Qualcomm has more allies to help them arguing against trade-restrictions... Regardless what the final outcome is, the better strategy of Qualcomm is obviously to have no outcome in short-term. [1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.79892/gov.uscourts.ded.79892.98.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798... [2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.79892/gov.uscourts.ded.79892.101.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798... [3] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64938776/arm-ltd-v-qualcomm-inc/?page=1#entry-115 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64938776/arm-ltd-v-qual...

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.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Yeah, that's the weird part. Nuvia's ARM license (now owned by Qualcomm) may be invalid for Qualcomm non-server use. But how can Nuvia IP be invalid? Presumably ARM never owned Nuvia's IP: why would they have negotiated that, given they already had license control? Ergo, Qualcomm owns Nuvia IP without a Nuvia ARM license. ... but that's fine, because Qualcomm has a Qualcomm ARM license. "I revoke your license, so you can't sell your IP to a willing third party" is a pretty dangerous precedent. You should be perfectly free to do so, to the extent that your buyer would also need their own license.
  - chx 2y ago
    How can Nuvia IP be invalid? Well, that's the beauty of Intellectual Property: it's not really a property it's a weird legal construct. Arm argues the entire Nuvia IP should have disappeared because the license allowing it to exist was voided when Qualcomm bought Nuvia. And Qualcomm had no legal right to move the IP on the foundation of their ARM license. They argue Qualcomm should've negotiated for a new license to use Nuvia IP. Whether they are right or not is up for the courts to decide but they make a legally sound argument without a doubt. If this makes no sense then here's a simple example: a DVD is not property, it's intellectual property. If it were property then region locks couldn't exist. Compare it to a book. You buy a book in London, no one stops you from reading it in New York, it's your property. Absurdity is the name of the game: in the DeCSS trial it was argued Johansen trespassed on his own computer. Edit: ah, I have a better, simpler explanation: Arm and Nuvia made a contract. Qualcomm bought Nuvia. Arm argues Qualcomm violated the terms of the contract. That's it.

gpm 2y ago

I encourage people to read the court-filings in any case if they're interested in the case. But I'd also caution people new to this that lawyers are extremely good at making their case seem obviously right even when it isn't. If you're not nodding along going "that seems right" when you read the argument in a complaint the lawyers either have a really bad case, or they screwed up (or in rare cases they're making technical arguments that they think will seem right to the judge even if they don't seem right to lay people). It's better to wait for a chance to read the response from the other side before agreeing that the side you are reading is right. In this case this lawsuit is from 2022, we have the responses already :) Here's the docket that lists all the filings: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64938776/arm-ltd-v-qualcomm-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64938776/arm-ltd-v-qual... And to extract the relevant items from that docket Here's the response, at a minimum if you find ARMs complaint convincing you should read this: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.79892/gov.uscourts.ded.79892.19.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798... Here's ARMs response to the response: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.79892/gov.uscourts.ded.79892.21.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798... From a reasonably quick scan it looks like everything else in this suit is about discovery, scheduling, and whether it should be a jury a trial or just heard in front of a judge. Scheduling note: A 5-day Jury Trial is set for 12/16/2024

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rickdeckard 2y ago
Also interesting, seeing how the defendants are expanding the scope of the lawsuit to delay its progress and keep everyone busy: - Qualcomm requesting the court to order ARM to provide ALL Architecture License Contracts with ANY party so Qualcomm can judge whether they are in violation of THEIR contract [1] - Apple requesting the court to NOT share this information, as they are not relevant to this case and a customer of BOTH ARM and Qualcomm [2] - Qualcomm trying to subpoena other licensees Apple, MediaTek, Google, Intel, etc. to court [3] Meanwhile Snapdragon X Elite pre-production is ramping up, Qualcomm-customers finalize their Hardware-design, Microsoft putting all their weight onto that architecture. So by end of 2024 the products are already launched, products are shipped and Qualcomm has more allies to help them arguing against trade-restrictions... Regardless what the final outcome is, the better strategy of Qualcomm is obviously to have no outcome in short-term. [1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.79892/gov.uscourts.ded.79892.98.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798... [2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.79892/gov.uscourts.ded.79892.101.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798... [3] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64938776/arm-ltd-v-qualcomm-inc/?page=1#entry-115 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64938776/arm-ltd-v-qual...