By: Groo (charlie.delete@this.semiaccurate.com), September 3, 2022 1:05 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
James (no.delete@this.thanks.invalid) on September 3, 2022 6:46 am wrote:
> Anon (no.delete@this.spam.com) on September 3, 2022 5:46 am wrote:
> > I (and apparently, Qualcomm) don't think Arm can prohibit
> > such assignment...
>
> That sounds implausible.
>
> Nuvia and Arm (and Qualcomm) were large enough to have plenty of lawyers and know what they were
> signing, and the courts are slow to interfere with (as opposed to enforce) legal agreements between
> large companies. In particular, it's difficult to allege that a term was unreasonable if Nuvia
> knew about it and willingly accepted it (they didn't have to take an Arm license).
>
> We may see what Qualcomm's legal reasoning is in the next 21 days.
>
My bet is that it all hinges on whether Nuvia got some concessions for their license terms. If they did my non-legal view is it may hold up/Arm will prevail. If they got nothing for that non-transfer term, Arm will have an uphill battle.
> > and this process may actually hurt Arm...
>
> Quite possibly, although Qualcomm have a reputation for strong-arm legal tactics
> (see the various Qualcomm monopoly lawsuits around the world): many of Arm's
> customers will have their own negative experiences with Qualcomm's lawyers.
Borderline illegal strong-arm license negotiations are nothing new in this industry. If you have a choice, they don't work. If you don't, you smile and take it, then plot revenge. Nothing new here.
That said if you have ever been to the Qualcomm HQ in San Diego, you will notice that one of the largest buildings on campus is the one that houses the lawyers. Pick your battles wisely.
-Charlie
> Anon (no.delete@this.spam.com) on September 3, 2022 5:46 am wrote:
> > I (and apparently, Qualcomm) don't think Arm can prohibit
> > such assignment...
>
> That sounds implausible.
>
> Nuvia and Arm (and Qualcomm) were large enough to have plenty of lawyers and know what they were
> signing, and the courts are slow to interfere with (as opposed to enforce) legal agreements between
> large companies. In particular, it's difficult to allege that a term was unreasonable if Nuvia
> knew about it and willingly accepted it (they didn't have to take an Arm license).
>
> We may see what Qualcomm's legal reasoning is in the next 21 days.
>
My bet is that it all hinges on whether Nuvia got some concessions for their license terms. If they did my non-legal view is it may hold up/Arm will prevail. If they got nothing for that non-transfer term, Arm will have an uphill battle.
> > and this process may actually hurt Arm...
>
> Quite possibly, although Qualcomm have a reputation for strong-arm legal tactics
> (see the various Qualcomm monopoly lawsuits around the world): many of Arm's
> customers will have their own negative experiences with Qualcomm's lawyers.
Borderline illegal strong-arm license negotiations are nothing new in this industry. If you have a choice, they don't work. If you don't, you smile and take it, then plot revenge. Nothing new here.
That said if you have ever been to the Qualcomm HQ in San Diego, you will notice that one of the largest buildings on campus is the one that houses the lawyers. Pick your battles wisely.
-Charlie
