3 ms·
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
by 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 agoBecause 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.