That doesn't seem to be the case here, though, or ARM wouldn't have allowed Qualcomm to use Nuvia's IP under any circumstance. In this case, ARM is asking Qualcomm for cash.
ARM gets do this if they write their contract in a successful fashion.That doesn't seem to be the case here, though, or ARM wouldn't have allowed Qualcomm to use Nuvia's IP under any circumstance. In this case, ARM is asking Qualcomm for cash.
They are not asking for cash they are asking for specific performance - the destruction of all technology created under Nuvia's ALA. They are only asking for cash incidental to the damages to compensate for the delay in Qualcomm's performance, but what they really want is for Qualcomm to destroy the Nuvia IP and be forced to re-create it from scratch. See paragraphs 68 & 69 on page 18.
Now that doesn't mean they might not accept a cash offer from Qualcomm, but they are under no obligation to do so. If the ALA terms are as ARM claims, they are fully entitled to specific performance under law.
Not really, it just has to include the term "non-transferable", and a requirement that if the license is canceled under the terms of the contract (i.e. by a transfer of ownership) then all IP created under the license must be destroyed.
I've seen contracts with both those requirements, so it wouldn't be unusual nor unenforceable.
Where did Qualcomm confirm that they destroyed the Nuvia IP?Qualcomm did confirm that the Nuvia IP has been destroyed. They are developing cores under their own license - there was no need to transfer the Nuvia license - and Qualcomm did not ask to transfer the license either. Softbank is well aware that they have zero chance of winning this, but they know that Qualcomm needs to accept a compromise in order to not delay the release.
Where did Qualcomm confirm that they destroyed the Nuvia IP?
It is in the filing. In any case what Softbank tries to claim is, that the IP in upcoming products is in fact the Nuvia IP, which was developed under the Nuvia license years ago. They are trying to support their claims by quoting Qualcomm press releases, where Qualcomm used the word "Nuvia" to describe their upcoming products - that is a very weak proof if you ask me.
In addition, what they are asking for is cash.
If Qualcomm did in fact "start from scratch" then ARM has no case. Of course Qualcomm may be doing the old "10% differentiation" trick used in dodging patents, but that might be sufficient to claim its an entirely new design forged under Qualcomm's license.
A lot of ARM's argument seems to hinge on the fact that Qualcomm has never designed their own high performing core (at best they were on par with ARM designs) and the speed at which this is coming (sample chips already given to partners and Qualcomm asking them to test it for standards compliance early this year) means it can't possibly be a clean sheet design but has to be largely based on mostly complete designs acquired from Nuvia.
With chips available for testing barely a year after the acquisition is completed - and presumably significantly better performing than ARM cores which Qualcomm never managed before, it is going to be hard for Qualcomm to argue they began from scratch. Doesn't help how much they kept talking about how Nuvia was the reason they were going to have these high performance cores soon.
It seems overall we came pretty close to what appears to have happened there.SemiAnalysis has a good writeup on the current status of this that catches up with subsequent court filings. ARM's position appears weaker than it initially did, though as always our view is limited since we don't have access to the ALAs.
https://semianalysis.substack.com/p/is-arm-desperate-qualcomm-claps-back
It seems overall we came pretty close to what appears to have happened there.
Have to say though I have to disagree with Dylan Patel about one (the?) crucial part the court will have to decide about:
"Qualcomm believes they are freely able to pass the Phoenix core microarchitecture between the acquired Nuvia entity and themselves, which is a very strong argument. The IP that Qualcomm acquired was the core architecture implementation, which is owned by them, not Arm."
I don't think this is a strong argument at all. On the contrary (and as some in this thread previously already suggested as I recall) Qualcomm buying Nuvia would enable circumventing Arm's licensing agreement that expressly forbids licensing custom core to others, for and to any and all licensees. That's where Arm's demand that Nuvia's designs be destroyed come from since otherwise any big rich company wanting to have some specific custom core and not able to license it could just buy its owner. And with that argument it appears Qualcomm's whole defense stands and falls.
I expect this to become the crux of the whole lawsuit.
Qualcomm licensing their core to others is not the point here at all. Qualcomm wants to use Nuvia designs. Nuvia's license agreement with Arm allowed licensing its custom core at an apparently huge fee markup. That's already a big exception to usual LAs forbidding licensing custom cores altogether. Now Qualcomm buys Nuvia and pretends that way it could circumvent either the fee markup it would have to pay to Arm for licensing the custom core as agreed by Nuvia, or the inability to license a custom core outright. Qualcomm calls it a supposedly completely independent core architecture implementation owned by them, Arm calls it an implementation fully dependent on its ARM ISA. Arm as such considers it to be subject to all the Arm licensing rules which by Arm's account forbid passing ownership of custom cores from one to another company without Arm's express agreement.It isn't clear that Qualcomm wants to license their core to third parties though.
Okay what is happening with ARM?
Not sure if I trust it, but yesterday Dylan Patel of SemiAnalysis wrote a post that was called this ”Arm Changes Business Model – OEM Partners Must Directly License From Arm”
Is there any truth to this or other sourcing? Dylan Patel says his analysis comes from documents submitted in the Arm and Qualcomm lawsuit.
I'm not sure how that could work very smoothly in practice. Qualcomm is designing ARM cores in their SoCs but they aren't licensed and can't be legally used except if they are sold to an OEM who has a licensing agreement with ARM? So instead of a handful of agreements that cover the entire Android market with Qualcomm, Mediatek, Samsung, etc. now they will have hundreds? Thousands? I have no idea how many OEMs there are, but there are a lot of white label brands in places like India and China that all would have to sign a licensing deal with ARM.
I do find it poetic justice that ARM is trying to double dip in licensing similar to what Qualcomm does, but it seems like they are going to scare a lot of other ARM licensees (other than Apple, who can ignore all these shenanigans) in their attempts to bring Qualcomm to heel. Good news for RISC-V fans, I guess.
Seem to be mostly self-inflicted injuries by Arm that's boosting Risc-V rise. Arm must have let go all of its corporate strategists in preparation to the failed takeover by Nvidia...Yep, we may witness the point where Arm slowly begins to die and RiscV to rise. Would still take time though.
ARM is making as much money as Qualcomm and they are the ones coming up with the IP. So they are hoping for a larger pie.
you are right. I missed a not. That is why they are trying to get a bigger piece of pie.What are you talking about? Qualcomm's revenue and profits absolutely dwarfs ARM's. Qualcomm makes more profit in a quarter than ARM makes revenue in a year.
Have you guys seen this!?
Yeah. It's gonna take a bit to digest the full implications of what ARM, Ltd. wants. It doesn't look good though. If Qualcomm is to be believed, ARM is telling people they can't put custom GPU IP into ARM SoCs. Instead they'll have to use some iteration of Mali or one of its successors. Qualcomm already uses Adreno over Mali, and due to a license deal they cut with AMD some time ago, Mediatek may still be able to use Radeon in their products (currently Mediatek uses Mali in their Dimensity SoCs).
They can use custom graphics etc if they use custom CPU cores, it's only if they use stock ARM cores that they have to use the rest of the ARM IP in the SoC. What we need is detail as to how much do you have to customise the cores to meet the criteria of being custom.