3 ms·

I read that part differently. I didn’t see it as a statement about the legal merits of ARM’s choices so much as the pragmatic business outcomes. It is possible

I read that part differently. I didn’t see it as a statement about the legal merits of ARM’s choices so much as the pragmatic business outcomes. It is possible for an action to be 100% legally correct and a bad business move (see: creative IP companies that sue their biggest fans). Even granting that ARM is completely within their right, this is a pretty bug reminder of the dangers of building on sole-source licensed IP when there’s an open alternative. I have little doubt that ARM drove some number of startups into choosing RISC-V. Which may or may not matter in the long run. But it is rolling the dice and by definition a short term maximization strategy.

klelatti 2y ago
My comment wasn’t really around legal or business merits but rather the bad faith nature of these actions which would apply whether using open or closed source ip. However, the ‘dangers of building on sole-source’ licensed IP is true in general but a bit overdone in this case. Qualcomm had a large number of options using Arm IP including developing their own cores in house. However they chose to do something that was - on the face of it - in breach of license agreements that Nuvia had signed.
- MobiusHorizons 2y ago
  > including developing their own cores in house. I believe ARM just revoked Qualcomm’s architecture license, so they no longer have that option if they want to run aarch64. The architecture license predated the Nuvia acquisition, and was the license under which Qualcomm developed their most recent laptop core.
  - adrian_b 2y ago
    Because the Qualcomm and Nuvia ALAs have remained secret, we cannot know whether Arm really has the right to revoke them at will. It is hard to believe that anyone would accept to sign an ALA that can easily be revoked, because whoever signs an ALA intends to invest a lot of money developing products based on it and there is no doubt that all the invested money can be lost if the ALA is revoked unilaterally. It remains to be seen what will happen at the trial.

klelatti 2y ago

My comment wasn’t really around legal or business merits but rather the bad faith nature of these actions which would apply whether using open or closed source ip. However, the ‘dangers of building on sole-source’ licensed IP is true in general but a bit overdone in this case. Qualcomm had a large number of options using Arm IP including developing their own cores in house. However they chose to do something that was - on the face of it - in breach of license agreements that Nuvia had signed.

MobiusHorizons 2y ago
> including developing their own cores in house. I believe ARM just revoked Qualcomm’s architecture license, so they no longer have that option if they want to run aarch64. The architecture license predated the Nuvia acquisition, and was the license under which Qualcomm developed their most recent laptop core.
- adrian_b 2y ago
  Because the Qualcomm and Nuvia ALAs have remained secret, we cannot know whether Arm really has the right to revoke them at will. It is hard to believe that anyone would accept to sign an ALA that can easily be revoked, because whoever signs an ALA intends to invest a lot of money developing products based on it and there is no doubt that all the invested money can be lost if the ALA is revoked unilaterally. It remains to be seen what will happen at the trial.