[colechristensen]

Wasn’t this whole thing a somewhat sketchy attempt by Qualcomm to change its licensing terms by acquiring a company with a different business model and therefore different Arm license?

Seems like Arm is trying to close licensing loopholes.

[Dracophoenix]

I doubt that there's any credible claim to the acquisition of a license from an acquired company being a loophole. If it was, it wasn't something ARM paid attention to for 20+ years. ARM didn't have a problem with Compaq/DEC transferring its StrongARM IP to Intel. Nor did ARM have a problem with Intel selling off part of the XScale line to Marvell. Even if Nuvia merely sold its architectural license in place of being acquired outright, Qualcomm would still have a strong case to claim that it does have architectural rights.

[colechristensen]

It comes down to specific legal language of the various licenses, not an analysis of what Arm did in the past. The claim is credible enough that the court didn't dismiss it out of hand. Armchair analysis without the actual licenses and some legal knowledge aren't all that helpful.

The lawsuit states

"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."

So Arm's case seems to hinge on whether or not the license language covering the prevention of assignment will be held up in court as applicable to this situation. That's the kind of legal dispute which will be very technical and not easy to speculate about... definitions of individual words and intent and all of that.

[Dracophoenix]

> Armchair analysis without the actual licenses and some legal knowledge aren't all that helpful.

I didn't claim that ARM lacked a case. My point was that acquiring another company's license is not in and of itself a "loophole", a word I find to be heavily abused. As you mentioned, the language of the particular licenses will dictate the outcome of this case. But as ARM has not as yet made those terms clear to the public, the most one can do is look at past behaviors and rule out certain arguments. My evaluation may change as more information becomes available.

And given the circumstances, ARMChair analysis is entirely appropriate.

[ksec]

No one is suggesting they cant sell their license to another company. ARM is only claiming those special deals, likely cost per core are only applicable to Nuvia and not Qualcomm.

[colechristensen]

Arm is suggesting that they have language in their license explicitly preventing sale of the license.

[snvzz]

It would be irrelevant to the lawsuit, as Qualcomm have a license that allows them to create designs such as the one they got from Nuvia, to begin with.

[ksec]

Yes I am wondering if those are specific to Qualcomm. And we wont know until all the details are given. But from the POV of ARM, Qualcomm got Nuvia's license which was favourable to Startup, and Server Market. Qualcomm intend to use it on PC and Smartphone. Obviously ARM think the terms would be different but Qualcomm disagree.

The original article and other media keeps painting it as some sort of revenge for not allowing Nvidia buying ARM. I dont even see how the two comes together when regulations and other parties are at play as well.