By: Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar), September 3, 2022 4:08 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Groo (charlie.delete@this.semiaccurate.com) on September 3, 2022 1:05 pm wrote:
> 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.
The non-transfer term may be present in all of ARM's architectural licenses. Since none has ever been made public, we don't know. If it differs in any way from Qualcomm's architectural license than it is NOT the same license, and Qualcomm will have a really hard arguing that their license covers it even when Nuvia's was canceled.
ARM's claim that Qualcomm said they had destroyed Nuvia IP may be the most damning. I assume they would not make such a claim if they do not have something in writing stating this. That would be an admission by Qualcomm that they agreed with ARM's interpretations about the licenses and the reason for the cancellation of Nuvia's license.
The court case would hinge on exactly what IP must be destroyed - with ARM presumably saying that if Qualcomm took a Nuvia design and built upon or modified it that must be destroyed and only a new from scratch design would be counted under Qualcomm's license.
> 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.
The non-transfer term may be present in all of ARM's architectural licenses. Since none has ever been made public, we don't know. If it differs in any way from Qualcomm's architectural license than it is NOT the same license, and Qualcomm will have a really hard arguing that their license covers it even when Nuvia's was canceled.
ARM's claim that Qualcomm said they had destroyed Nuvia IP may be the most damning. I assume they would not make such a claim if they do not have something in writing stating this. That would be an admission by Qualcomm that they agreed with ARM's interpretations about the licenses and the reason for the cancellation of Nuvia's license.
The court case would hinge on exactly what IP must be destroyed - with ARM presumably saying that if Qualcomm took a Nuvia design and built upon or modified it that must be destroyed and only a new from scratch design would be counted under Qualcomm's license.