this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
60 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
60029 readers
2760 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
She won’t load for me. TLDR?
Qualcomm bought nuvia, which had a broad license to use ARM's IP. They used said IP to make chips.
ARM claims that the change in ownership somehow invalidates the license and they were required to renegotiate new terms.
They couldn't convince a jury because that doesn't make sense without very specific terms explicitly detailing exactly what conditions nullify their license agreement.
I don’t know why a blanket, terms not transferable upon sale, wouldn’t have covered it, but either that is too broad or didn’t exist in the original Nuvia contract.
Companies get acquired all the time. Losing licenses is not the norm.
It's not about losing a license. ARM's angle was that Nuvia's license was for the server market. Qualcomm had their own license for the mobile chips. ARM's issue was that the chip was developed under one license and sold/manufactured under another. (At least the first version)
I agree but that doesn’t really have anything to do with what’s in the Nuvia contract. I assume you mean it wouldn’t be the norm to have not transferrable in there.
Yeah, the terms would probably be legal, but they'd be so prohibitive that most companies wouldn't sign them. Having to get a new license to key technology negotiated when you want to sell is a huge handicap.
That's a bullshit argument, practically it's the same as if Nuvia sold their license to Qualcomm, which they obviously wouldn't have the right to do.
I don't see how Arm lost this suit, they did NOT grant that license to Qualcomm. The judgement seems ridiculous.
No, it's not the same.
Companies being acquired for their contracts is a daily occurrence.
There's a difference between an order contract an a license.
The license to make Arm CPU was granted to Nuvia not to Qualcomm.
Qualcomm using the license, is the same as transferring or selling it, and that's NOT normal with a patent or copyright license. Except if it is kept within the intended scope.
Qualcomm taking over the license changes the scope, and that would usually be clearly enough to invalidate it.
No, there is not. A license is just a contract.
Buying a company because they have a license you want is not remotely unusual. It's perfectly standard behavior, and the entire enterprise world would fall apart if an acquisition lost the rights to licenses the purchased business owned.
Ok, thanks! Yeah I’m from everything I heard it seems that ARM is just whining.