just_another_person@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 05:04
nextcollapse
This is bonkers
neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 21 Dec 08:41
nextcollapse
She won’t load for me. TLDR?
neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 21 Dec 08:42
nextcollapse
She won’t load for me. TLDR?
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
on 21 Dec 09:25
collapse
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.
neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 21 Dec 13:26
nextcollapse
Ok, thanks! Yeah I’m from everything I heard it seems that ARM is just whining.
QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 14:11
nextcollapse
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.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
on 21 Dec 14:20
collapse
Companies get acquired all the time. Losing licenses is not the norm.
QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 14:31
nextcollapse
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.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
on 21 Dec 14:56
collapse
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.
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)
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.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
on 21 Dec 15:27
collapse
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.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
on 21 Dec 18:28
collapse
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.
potatopotato@sh.itjust.works
on 21 Dec 16:12
collapse
I used to do some work with Qualcomm and ARM IP. They both need to die. ARM is holding back all manner of technologies with their absolutely insane and byzantine licensing scheme and Qualcomm is one of the most evil tech companies in existence, you just don’t hear about them because their particular evil is constrained to B2B interactions.
threaded - newest
This is bonkers
She won’t load for me. TLDR?
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.
Ok, thanks! Yeah I’m from everything I heard it seems that ARM is just whining.
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.
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.
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)
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.
I used to do some work with Qualcomm and ARM IP. They both need to die. ARM is holding back all manner of technologies with their absolutely insane and byzantine licensing scheme and Qualcomm is one of the most evil tech companies in existence, you just don’t hear about them because their particular evil is constrained to B2B interactions.