anonymou5 (no.delete@this.spam.com) on July 1, 2022 5:40 am wrote:
> dmcq (dmcq.delete@this.fano.co.uk) on July 1, 2022 4:16 am wrote:
> > anonymou5 (no.delete@this.spam.com) on June 30, 2022 6:19 pm wrote:
> > > Anon4 (no.delete@this.example.com) on June 30, 2022 4:37 pm wrote:
> > > > anonymou5 (no.delete@this.spam.com) on June 30, 2022 7:28 am wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Morello exists because Arm would be foolish not to pick up the UK research £££.
> > > >
> > > > Morello is part of a UK government project called Digital Security by Design and is partially
> > > > funded by a pot of money called the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund administered by UKRI.
> > > >
> > > > The way that fund operates means ARM must have made a matching investment of a similar size to what
> > > > they got from the fund from their own money. Thus no it's not just free research £££ to pickup.
> > >
> > > I didn't say it was free. See above for what I said (wrote). I stand by it. :)
> >
> > If ARM did not 'pick up the UK research £££' it would be richer and it is poorer because
> > it did pick it up. So exactly where do you get 'Arm would be foolish not to pick up the
> > UK research £££' from. If it got 115% of the cost it would make a profit.
>
> Are you suggesting that Arm shouldn't have matched the UK funding and a) done Morello
> on its own dime^W 10p instead, or b) not done Morello at all?

I'm saying that 'Morello exists because Arm would be foolish not to pick up the UK research £££' on its own is wrong. It implies the £££ was an important goal for ARM rather than something that made it easier. There's lots of other things where you could have paid the whole cost and more and ARM just wouldn't be interested.