5 ms·

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 a

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.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      The problem is that Qualcomm-ARM may already have a license contract that's a superset of Nuvia-ARM. Depending on the wording of Qualcomm's architectural ARM license, it seems like that might cover Nuvia's IP? Or in other words, if anyone who wasn't an ARM architectural licensee bought Nuvia, Nuvia's IP would have been unusable. But because someone with a "do anything custom with this core" bought Nuvia, Qualcomm effectively bought some "anything custom". The real IP needle in this haystack seems to be: what ARM IP did Nuvia use that Qualcomm doesn't already have an architectural license for? I.e. extra sauce ARM shared with them for their specific use case. Which sets up for a SCO-Unix-style threshing of technical details for individual pieces. Which I imagine both ARM and Qualcomm will eventually want to avoid, as they'd like to continue doing business together, so this will eventually collapse into a new licensing agreement that covers all claims. (Assuming neither pisses the other off badly enough to salt the earth)
      - chx 2y ago
        > Depending on the wording of Qualcomm's architectural ARM license, it seems like that might cover Nuvia's IP? Right, but ARM says "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" Basically ARM says Qualcomm should pay more than they did before because no, their blanket doesn't cover Nuvia. > so this will eventually collapse into a new licensing agreement that covers all claims Obviously. That's the crux of the matter. Qualcomm says they shouldn't pay more, ARM says they should.
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  I'm not leaving that out: "Qualcomm is trying to transfer everything Nuvia has developed under that specific narrow ARM-license to the broad license of Qualcomm" ARMs legal claim is that the broad license of Qualcomm is not applicable to "host" the IP of Nuvia, because this IP was built on a very specific narrow license ARM provided to them, with contractual terms which do not allow the License and IP to be transferred

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.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    The problem is that Qualcomm-ARM may already have a license contract that's a superset of Nuvia-ARM. Depending on the wording of Qualcomm's architectural ARM license, it seems like that might cover Nuvia's IP? Or in other words, if anyone who wasn't an ARM architectural licensee bought Nuvia, Nuvia's IP would have been unusable. But because someone with a "do anything custom with this core" bought Nuvia, Qualcomm effectively bought some "anything custom". The real IP needle in this haystack seems to be: what ARM IP did Nuvia use that Qualcomm doesn't already have an architectural license for? I.e. extra sauce ARM shared with them for their specific use case. Which sets up for a SCO-Unix-style threshing of technical details for individual pieces. Which I imagine both ARM and Qualcomm will eventually want to avoid, as they'd like to continue doing business together, so this will eventually collapse into a new licensing agreement that covers all claims. (Assuming neither pisses the other off badly enough to salt the earth)
    - chx 2y ago
      > Depending on the wording of Qualcomm's architectural ARM license, it seems like that might cover Nuvia's IP? Right, but ARM says "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" Basically ARM says Qualcomm should pay more than they did before because no, their blanket doesn't cover Nuvia. > so this will eventually collapse into a new licensing agreement that covers all claims Obviously. That's the crux of the matter. Qualcomm says they shouldn't pay more, ARM says they should.
rickdeckard 2y ago
I'm not leaving that out: "Qualcomm is trying to transfer everything Nuvia has developed under that specific narrow ARM-license to the broad license of Qualcomm" ARMs legal claim is that the broad license of Qualcomm is not applicable to "host" the IP of Nuvia, because this IP was built on a very specific narrow license ARM provided to them, with contractual terms which do not allow the License and IP to be transferred