Huang joked that one of the people who preceded him on stage, Qualcomm CEO Cristiano Amon, is the perfect incoming chairman of the SIA — which talks to regulators — because he has been going around to all the regulators of the world to kill the Arm deal.
Another reason to go with RISC-V - because you don't have to worry about clearly breaching a companies core licensing policies despite multiple warnings and even chances at relicensing?See Chinese CPU design companies wouldn't have this problem. That's why they'll be ahead in 10 years.
Or alternatively another reason to go with RISC-V even if it is sub-optimal.
Yes, RISC-V designs don't have to worry about instruction set lawyers being unleashed because you torpedoed Jensen's acquisition.Another reason to go with RISC-V - because you don't have to worry about clearly breaching a companies core licensing policies despite multiple warnings and even chances at relicensing?
Lets just say it as it is - this is a dick move from Qualcomm.
Yes, RISC-V designs don't have to worry about instruction set lawyers being unleashed because you torpedoed Jensen's acquisition.
In that case they'd have to resort to the traditional patent trolls.
What were ARM's "good faith" terms to consent to transfer Nuvia's architectural license? ARM's press release doesn't say much. Is it good faith to ask Nuvia to destroy a multi-billion dollar design because of licensing issues? Sounds like ARM doesn't want competition for Neoverse.
Because Qualcomm attempted to transfer Nuvia licenses without Arm’s consent, which is a standard restriction under Arm’s license agreements, Nuvia’s licenses terminated in March 2022. Before and after that date, Arm made multiple good faith efforts to seek a resolution.
It is like arm decided that when Qualcomm acquired Nuvia. Look you just spent billions on IP that we effectively control. Per our contract we have to consent to that license transfer. Now let's negotiate how much more you will pay us than Nuvia agreed to or we'll kill it.You have to be kidding me. Wanting to protect your IP after literal months of warnings is absolutely acting in good faith.
It's not like ARM decided "okay, it's time for Nuvia to die now".
If they can prove in court that final statement, then the case is settled. That is a rather easy statement to verify.
You're acting like it's guaranteed that this case is purely in bad faith, but if that's the case ARM stripped away Nuvia's ARM license in March of this year. If Qualcomm were acting in good faith they would have halted development on the Nuvia cores and put together a lawsuit or tried to reach an agreement with ARM to get relicensed.
That clearly didn't happen.
It is like arm decided that when Qualcomm acquired Nuvia. Look you just spent billions on IP that we effectively control. Per our contract we have to consent to that license transfer. Now let's negotiate how much more you will pay us than Nuvia agreed to or we'll kill it.
And arm has the guts to call such bait and switch licensing maneuvers "good faith".
From the text of the lawsuit. It is entirely about transferring Nuvia's architectural license to Qualcomm. arm has to consent to that. Over the last year, since the Nuvia deal closed, arm refused to consent to the license transfer. arm was nice enough to inform Qualcomm of that before the deal closed.What are you basing this on?
Qualcomm already had an architectural license, so there should be no need to transfer Nuvia's architectural license to Qualcomm so I don't think that's what this is about. ARM specifically said they terminated Nuvia's license. What about Qualcomm's license, if whatever happened occurred while Qualcomm was in control of them wouldn't they also be in breach?
What I wonder is whether Nuvia attempted to sublicense its core designs (i.e. to one of the big cloud providers like Amazon) and that's what ARM is slapping them down for. Because I've seen people suggest that Qualcomm could do that to gain revenue from the big cloud providers who are doing their own chip designs, but that's not something the ARM architectural license permits.
It will be interesting to see what Qualcomm's response is, and if they don't have any public response other than in legal filings or "we deny wrongdoing and will contest this in court" I'll take that as a very bad sign.
It is like arm decided that when Qualcomm acquired Nuvia. Look you just spent billions on IP that we effectively control. Per our contract we have to consent to that license transfer. Now let's negotiate how much more you will pay us than Nuvia agreed to or we'll kill it.
And arm has the guts to call such bait and switch licensing maneuvers "good faith".
Also in the lawsuit they admit they refuse to let Qualcomm release it under their existing architectural license. In fact that's probably what provoked it. Qualcomm submitted the design to arm for validation (lol) under the terms of Qualcomm's architectural license...that sounds perfectly normal for licensing agreements though, obviously the terms change based upon the customer?
How is it bait and switch when the licenses are non-transferrable - something that Qualcomm would have had full knowledge of? Qualcomm would have had to have been relicensed either way in order to use the Nuvia cores, acting like it's a bait and switch is assuming they wouldn't have knowledge of how a license they also are under (Qualcomm also have an ALA) works.
Sounds like it.ARM is effectively poisoned now.
That's why Qualcomm was an ideal candidate to buy Nuvia. Large cross-licensing profile to close most IP lawsuits on amicable terms. And can you *really* say you don't want laundered Apple IP available for the rest of us mere mortals?(pure speculation) Nuvia seemed a bit suspect the second they formed. Bunch of industry talent forming their own company without any base IP. I don't think they ever released a chip. Wonder if when qualcomm submitted their designs arm looked at and noticed it looks just like some apple/google IP.
It will all come out in discovery...
More like a braindead move. Arm as the licensor clearly has the upper hand here and sets the rules, and Qualcomm actively endangers its ARM license, something pretty much all of its business rely on. What is the gain for Qualcomm in that?Lets just say it as it is - this is a dick move from Qualcomm.
Qualcomm's actions suggest they thought their existing architectural license could apply to Nuvia-designed chips. Why else would Qualcomm submit the design to arm again after being notified the Nuvia license was terminated because no consent to the transfer was negotiated?More like a braindead move. Arm as the licensor clearly has the upper hand here and sets the rules, and Qualcomm actively endangers its ARM license, something pretty much all of its business rely on. What is the gain for Qualcomm in that?
ARM warned Qualcomm but Qualcomm ignored to renew the license to make it transferable.Qualcomm's actions suggest they thought their existing architectural license could apply to Nuvia-designed chips. Why else would Qualcomm submit the design to arm again after being notified the Nuvia license was terminated because no consent to the transfer was negotiated?
arm's argument against that seems to be that since the derivative Nuvia IP was developed under the Nuvia license it cannot be continued under the Qualcomm license. And I suspect they're correct or they wouldn't have continued down this route
Companies and people from all over the world try to steal or stealed Apple's IP. Apple is strict with their secrecy for a reason. If the Nuvia founders really stole Apple's IP and if it proved in court oh boy Qualcomm got danger coming.And can you *really* say you don't want laundered Apple IP available for the rest of us mere mortals?
"system-on-chip" (SoC) technology, and that at least two former Apple engineers took gigabytes of confidential information with them to Rivos."I can't tell how much went but the big names went to Rivos.
It's "IP theft" in name only. it is the same intellectuals evolving on their ideas. Yet because it has some elements in common with Apple it could be a basis for a patent lawsuit.ARM warned Qualcomm but Qualcomm ignored to renew the license to make it transferable.
Companies and people from all over the world try to steal or stealed Apple's IP. Apple is strict with their secrecy for a reason. If the Nuvia founders really stole Apple's IP and if it proved in court oh boy Qualcomm got danger coming.
How about this why don't companies make or design their own CPU designs properly. Qualcomm had plenty of time to sort this out. Apple ain't magic they have good project management and scope and they deliver. Qualcomm is protective of its 5G patents so ARM has every right do the same of it own IP.
A company of Qualcomm's size doesn't "think", such companies usually have their own lawyers that usually ensure everything is legally watertight. That this obviously escalated to the licensor suing a licensee is a worst case scenario where Qualcomm may have played politics "thinking" it would be too big and important for Arm's licensing rules to apply for it and be sued for not following them. Arm on the other hand obviously can't let that happen as it is the absolute authority and has to enforce that accordingly. Qualcomm is acting braindead to let it escalate to this point.Qualcomm's actions suggest they thought their existing architectural license could apply to Nuvia-designed chips.
idea's aren't IP and you don't think that the guy who was chief of the A7 toA12 cores had lots of idea's about how to make a fast CPU? How well have Apple progressed in CPU performance since his departure ?"system-on-chip" (SoC) technology, and that at least two former Apple engineers took gigabytes of confidential information with them to Rivos."
Apple lawsuit says 'stealth' startup Rivos poached engineers to steal secrets
Technology startup Rivos Inc allegedly stole Apple Inc's computer-chip trade secrets after poaching its engineers, Apple said in a lawsuit filed in California federal court.www.reuters.com
Nuvia and Rivos have former enginners from Apple. I suspect since Apple spends the most on R&D, they probably discovered something good.
Beware of starts up that say we have the best CPU core design out of the blue, it is likely stolen IP which the former company paid the research for.
A company of Qualcomm's size doesn't "think", such companies usually have their own lawyers that usually ensure everything is legally watertight. That this obviously escalated to the licensor suing a licensee is a worst case scenario where Qualcomm may have played politics "thinking" it would be too big and important for Arm's licensing rules to apply for it and be sued for not following them. Arm on the other hand obviously can't let that happen as it is the absolute authority and has to enforce that accordingly. Qualcomm is acting braindead to let it escalate to this point.