Comment by rickdeckard | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rickdeckard | Hacker News Reader

The court-filing describes ARM's position quite well: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22273195/arm-v-qualco...

My nutshell:

1. ARM gave a broad range of licenses to Nuvia to develop an ARM-based architecture for use in servers, with a license-fee to match this objective (probably a favorable one, because it's a field ARM aims to expand):

"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."

2. Qualcomm acquires Nuvia with the intention to use the developed IP for (quote):

"powering flagship smartphones, next-generation laptops, and digital cockpits, as well as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, extended reality and infrastructure networking solutions"

Sounds quite reasonable if the claim is validated: ARM gave favorable conditions to a startup which aimed to compete in a field where ARM is weak (servers). Now the biggest customer of the strongest revenue-market of ARM (mobile devices) has acquired that startup to repurpose their development and license to use in mobile devices, PCs, automotive, VR,...

Thanks for posting the link, some extra tidbits I saw :

- Feb 22, arm announced to Qualcomm that Nuvia's ALA/TLA licenses would be terminated in March 1st 22 (for the reasons from parent post)

- On April 1st, arm counsel acknowledged the termination of the licenses and that Nuvia was in compliance (aka destroyed the designs under the license they had obtained, which is in the ALA contract)

- On multiple occasions afterwards Qualcomm asked arm to validate "new core designs" to be used on upcoming products (!)

- Qualcomm PR/CEO kept talking about upcoming product based on Nuvia's work, while the license was effectively revoked, and was planning to sample such chips

It will be interesting to see Qualcomm's counterclaims, but arm's factual presentation seems pretty clear and doesn't paint Qualcomm under a very flattering light. Arm's complaint all in all looks pretty reasonable (again, we only have one side of the story, but there's some pretty obvious bad faith from Qualcomm here).

Thanks. On top, for those who want to expand another bracket of detail:

- On Feb22 ARM announced the termination of Nuvia's license.

- "On February 23, 2022, Qualcomm confirmed that it was still developing the relevant Nuvia technology by stating in a court filing that certain Nuvia documents were based on “years of research and work” and would “reveal secret design components of Qualcomm chips that are still in development."

- "On March 1, 2022, the Nuvia licenses terminated, along with the corresponding rights to use or sell products based on or incorporating Nuvia technology developed under those licenses."*

- "Qualcomm further told Arm that it planned to “redeploy NUVIA employees” and “transfer NUVIA’s work” to Qualcomm and, consistent with that plan, Qualcomm has on-boarded Nuvia’s leadership and employees as Qualcomm employees".

- "Arm wrote Qualcomm clarifying that neither Nuvia nor Qualcomm was authorized to continue working on technology that was developed under the Nuvia licenses."

- "Two weeks later, Qualcomm sought Arm’s verification that a new Qualcomm processor core complied with Arm architecture so that it could be verified and incorporated into a product."

- "In June 2022, Qualcomm’s CEO reiterated that it would soon begin “sampling” Nuvia chips to companies, allowing them to design electronic devices incorporating the chips in the “next year.”19 Based on that timeline, he explained, “[i]n late next year, beginning 2024, you’re going to see Windows PCs powered by Snapdragon with a Nuvia-designed CPU.”"

LOL, ARM’s lawyers quoted me. Page 9, paragraph 32, footnote 9

I don't get it. Maybe they should have taken into account the possibility of a purchase when drawing up the contract?

Don't know what's there not to get, the text I quoted states this explicitly:

"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."

ARM claims that they gave Nuvia a license with the condition to develop server-architecture, Qualcomm assumes that (the total sum of) their licenses allows them to use the architecture for whatever they want. ARM disagrees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com