By: Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar), September 3, 2022 4:02 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Anon (no.delete@this.spam.com) on September 3, 2022 5:46 am wrote:
> James (no.delete@this.thanks.invalid) on September 3, 2022 5:40 am wrote:
> > According to the complaint,
>
> I (and apparently, Qualcomm) don't think Arm can prohibit
> such assignment, and this process may actually hurt Arm...
Why not? If a license includes the term "non-transferable" then that would be an open and shut case. We don't know the text of the license, but it is quite easy to write a contract that prohibits what you say ARM cannot prohibit. If the royalty schedule was different for Nuvia than for Qualcomm, then it isn't the same license so whether Qualcomm had its own license is irrelevant.
If ARM's claims are true that Qualcomm claimed they had destroyed IP associated with Nuvia's license but did not actually do so, then this point would be irrelevant - by making that claim Qualcomm has already conceded the license is non-transferable and won't be able to argue against that in court.
In that case, the dispute before the court would be about exactly what IP must be destroyed. i.e. is it a "fruit of the poison tree" type situation where any design that builds upon a design that originated with Nuvia must be destroyed, or only the Nuvia designs that were completed at the time of purchase. ARM believes the former, Qualcomm presumably will argue the latter because they can no longer argue ARM doesn't have the right to block transfer of a non-transferable license Qualcomm agreed to.
> James (no.delete@this.thanks.invalid) on September 3, 2022 5:40 am wrote:
> > According to the complaint,
The licenses safeguarded Arm’s rights and expectations(my emphasis).
> > by prohibiting assignment without Arm’s consent, regardless of whether
> > a contemplated assignee had its own Arm licenses.
>
> I (and apparently, Qualcomm) don't think Arm can prohibit
> such assignment, and this process may actually hurt Arm...
Why not? If a license includes the term "non-transferable" then that would be an open and shut case. We don't know the text of the license, but it is quite easy to write a contract that prohibits what you say ARM cannot prohibit. If the royalty schedule was different for Nuvia than for Qualcomm, then it isn't the same license so whether Qualcomm had its own license is irrelevant.
If ARM's claims are true that Qualcomm claimed they had destroyed IP associated with Nuvia's license but did not actually do so, then this point would be irrelevant - by making that claim Qualcomm has already conceded the license is non-transferable and won't be able to argue against that in court.
In that case, the dispute before the court would be about exactly what IP must be destroyed. i.e. is it a "fruit of the poison tree" type situation where any design that builds upon a design that originated with Nuvia must be destroyed, or only the Nuvia designs that were completed at the time of purchase. ARM believes the former, Qualcomm presumably will argue the latter because they can no longer argue ARM doesn't have the right to block transfer of a non-transferable license Qualcomm agreed to.
