4 ms·
I believe that Arm's argument is more in the other direction, that is that Qualcomm license does not cover IP developed by Nuvia.
by 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 agoIt’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 agoWhat 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.