Arm Files a Lawsuit Against One of its Biggest Customers, Qualcomm

[big_glasses]

It's ARM, not Arm.

Additionally, this article is written in a way that seems to assume Qualcomm's guilt without any regard for factual examination of information. This is not only poor reporting but it does a dis-service to the reader as it lacks objectivity and impartiality. ARM could very well be in the wrong in it's assertions and Qualcomm doing exactly what it's allowed to do. It is not for the press to decide, that's the purpose of a court, which is why they exist.

Half of it is quote from Arm, and the unquoted part is quite impartial. He even says 'it is a matter of time before we see more information about the case'
Also Arm uses "Arm" in their own newsletter... And seem to use it multiple places on their webpage

 

[lexluthermiester]

Half of it is quote from Arm, and the unquoted part is quite impartial. He even says 'it is a matter of time before we see more information about the case'
Also Arm uses "Arm" in their own newsletter... And seem to use it multiple places on their webpage
View attachment 260372

ARM architecture family - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

ARM (stylized in lowercase as arm, formerly an acronym for Advanced RISC Machines and originally Acorn RISC Machine)

It doesn't matter if they themselves improperly use their own acronym, professionalism demands that a media outlet such as TPU use the proper acronym and that's what I'm calling out.

Additionally, AleksanderK has a habit of presenting articles from a very narrow & one-sided perspective, as was done here.

When Qualcomm acquired Nuvia Inc., regarded as one of the best CPU design teams in the industry, it transferred Arm-Nuvia license agreements as its own. It continued the development of Arm IP under Qualcomm's name. This is a standard restriction, as Arm's licensing prohibits these sorts of IP transfers among companies to protect the IP.

The direct statement here sides with ARM based on their claims without any consideration for Qualcomm's position. The contracts are NOT public information and are governed by NDA. There is no way for anyone outside of ARM, Qualcomm and Nuvia to know the details of what is and is not permited. Further, there are conditions under which the rights and permissions of one company are transferred to another upon purchase of the subject entity. Qualcomm is likely exercising what it interprets as it's lawful rights. Again, such disputes are for a COURT to decide, not the press. It is inappropriate for an article writer to take such an openly biased position.

What I'm saying here is that the professionalism bar needs to be set a bit higher.

 

[big_glasses]

ARM architecture family - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It doesn't matter if they themselves improperly use their own acronym, professionalism demands that a media outlet such as TPU use the proper acronym and that's what I'm calling out.

as said was quoted from them. Formatting shouldn't be edited ether.
Arm's website (including trademark and logo guidelines) > Wikipedia.

Trademark Use Guidelines – Arm®

This site contains Arm’s trademark use guidelines for Arm’s trademarks, including additional guidance for use in presentations, publications and websites.

www.arm.com

TPU is following Arm's trademark usage

Additionally, AleksanderK has a habit of presenting articles form a very narrow & one-sided perspective, as was done here.

The direct statement here sides with ARM based on their claims without any consideration for Qualcomm's position. The contracts are NOT public information and are governed by NDA. There is no way for anyone outside of ARM, Qualcomm and Nuvia to know the details of what is and is not permited. Further, there are conditions under which the rights and permissions of one company are transferred to another upon purchase of the subject entity. Qualcomm is likely exercising what it interprets as it's lawful rights. Again, such disputes are for a COURT to decide, not the press. It is inappropriate for an article writer to take such an openly biased position.

What I'm saying here is that the professionalism bar needs to be set a bit higher.

Standard contracts (atleast in my industry) isn't usually transferable. And here (allegedly) it isn't ether (from Arm's wording)
What's the wrong in saying "standard contracts" aren't transferable?
But sure, the article is more 'positive' towards Arm than Qualcomm, and should've preferably been tldr; at top and then the press release from Arm

 

[lexluthermiester]

as said was quoted from them. Formatting shouldn't be edited ether.
Arm's website (including trademark and logo guidelines) > Wikipedia.

Trademark Use Guidelines – Arm®

This site contains Arm’s trademark use guidelines for Arm’s trademarks, including additional guidance for use in presentations, publications and websites.

www.arm.com

TPU is following Arm's trademark usage
View attachment 260387
View attachment 260386

Standard contracts (atleast in my industry) isn't usually transferable. And here (allegedly) it isn't ether (from Arm's wording)
What's the wrong in saying "standard contracts" aren't transferable?
But sure, the article is more 'positive' towards Arm than Qualcomm, and should've preferably been tldr; at top and then the press release from Arm

Just because they own the company doesn't mean they get to rewrite history. They do NOT get to dictate terms. ARM stands for "Advanced RISC Machine". End of discussion, end of story.

 

[Aquinus]

The direct statement here sides with ARM based on their claims without any consideration for Qualcomm's position. The contracts are NOT public information and are governed by NDA. There is no way for anyone outside of ARM, Qualcomm and Nuvia to know the details of what is and is not permited. Further, there are conditions under which the rights and permissions of one company are transferred to another upon purchase of the subject entity. Qualcomm is likely exercising what it interprets as it's lawful rights. Again, such disputes are for a COURT to decide, not the press. It is inappropriate for an article writer to take such an openly biased position.

What I'm saying here is that the professionalism bar needs to be set a bit higher.

While I generally agree, this definitely doesn't sound good for Qualcomm. Let's just say that this kind of restriction isn't uncommon for licensing IP and this sounds more like a case of Qualcomm attempting to push boundaries to see what they can get away with because contract language tends to be pretty exact, regardless of what the particular details are. x86 licensing works the same way to the best of my knowledge. Said license is not transferable after an acquisition, otherwise I'm sure somebody would have bought VIA by now just for the x86 license but it doesn't work that way as Qualcomm is about to find out first hand.

Just because they own the company doesn't mean they get to rewrite history. ARM stands for "Advanced RISC Machine". End of discussion, end of story.

I think you've made your point and @big_glasses can stop digging his heels in any time now.

 

[R0H1T]

With x86-64 it was pretty cut & dry, the license was/is non transferable. This is why it was a big deal back in 2015-16 when AMD was on the verge of bankruptcy, because it would lead to Intel being the only major x86 chipmaker & even if someone were to buy AMD(IP) post bankruptcy the license wouldn't be transferable. I always wonder what some of those n**** were thinking when they said we'd be fine even if AMD went kaput around that time

 

[lexluthermiester]

While I generally agree, this definitely doesn't sound good for Qualcomm.

It'll be interesting to see how things turn out.

Let's just say that this kind of restriction isn't uncommon for licensing IP and this sounds more like a case of Qualcomm attempting to push boundaries to see what they can get away with because contract language tends to be pretty exact, regardless of what the particular details are.

Contract law is very complicated. Companies often buyout other companies to gain IP properties and/or rights access. It's common practice. For Qualcomm to make a move like this and expect a transfer of rights is neither uncommon nor unexpected. ARM might be right, Qualcomm might be right, they might both be right and thus the conflict. The devil is in the details.

 

[Aquinus]

Contract law is very complicated. Companies often buyout other companies to gain IP properties and/or rights access. It's common practice. For Qualcomm to make a move like this and expect a transfer of rights is neither uncommon nor unexpected. ARM might be right, Qualcomm might be right, they might both be right and thus the conflict. The devil is in the details.

I'm just thinking about other licenses that have similar restrictions. I don't recall any cases where that clause was struck due to an acquisition for an x86 license. I'm not sure if there is a precedent for Qualcomm which is why I think it's probably an uphill battle. I'm assuming that the contract is clear in its language, the question is more one of, does ARM legally have the authority to imply such a licensing restriction and I think precedent is "yes, they do."

All in all, it could go either way, but I'd put my money on ARM.

 

[big_glasses]

Just because they own the company doesn't mean they get to rewrite history. They do NOT get to dictate terms. ARM stands for "Advanced RISC Machine". End of discussion, end of story.

funniest shit I've heard this week, Arm can't define their own trademark?


@Aquinus won't stop digging my heals when I'm correct on Arm trademarking I'd say it's lex that's digging his heel, unsourced/wikipedia sourced for trademark/branding vs official guidelines....
Which is more professional to use?

Using the Arm® Trademark – Arm®

Using the Arm Trademark

www.arm.com

----
For the license itself , it certainly depends on precedence and contract.
I'm pretty sure they can have non-transferable licenses. ( https://www.minterellison.com/artic...xt=If a licence is non,permission (if at all). )

but license itself is a shitshow, and I'm reminded again why I hate working close to licensing so much

 

[lexluthermiester]

funniest shit I've heard this week, Arm can't define their own trademark?

They can define thier own trademark, sure. They may NOT rewrite history, nor the acronym that represents who and what they are, nor demand the press not use that acronym.

I'd say it's lex that's digging his heel

Correction, standing my ground on a correct point.

For the license itself , it certainly depends on precedence and contract.
I'm pretty sure they can have non-transferable licenses. ( https://www.minterellison.com/artic...xt=If a licence is non,permission (if at all). )

but license itself is a shitshow, and I'm reminded again why I hate working close to licensing so much

Agreed, contract law can be a real pain...

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

They can define thier own trademark, sure. They may NOT rewrite history, nor the acronym that represents who and what they are, nor demand the press not use that acronym.

AFAIK Trademarks have to used exactly as it was when it was registered, unless a correction is submitted. Using a copyrighted name is not as strict. I may have this backwards /1stcoffee.

 

[Aquinus]

@Aquinus won't stop digging my heals when I'm correct on Arm trademarking I'd say it's lex that's digging his heel, unsourced/wikipedia sourced for trademark/branding vs official guidelines....
Which is more professional to use?

It's more professional to not be making a big stink about something as trivial as this in my opinion. There are far better arguments worth winning.

but license itself is a shitshow, and I'm reminded again why I hate working close to licensing so much

I've always preferred lenient licenses, but at the end of the day a lot of people run businesses to make money, not to improve open IP... unless you're mainland China, in which case all IP to them is open regardless of laws surrounding them. I do think that there is a need to be able to control your own IP and I personally think that the whole transferal aspect falls into that bucket. The real question is, in the absence of the Nuvia ARM license, does Qualcomm still have the appropriate licensure for what they're doing? If the answer is no, then I think we know where this is headed. If the answer is yes, then we know exactly what ARM is trying to do, and that's to extract money from Qualcomm. I think both angles could be valid, however I suspect that Qualcomm is missing something in their license that Nuvia had which is likely at the heart of this lawsuit. That's my take anyways from a mere pleb on the internet.