Qualcomm Argues Less Than 1% of Arm IP is Inside Nuvia Cores in Snapdragon X Chips

[AleksandarK]

Days of Arm-Qualcomm legal disputes continue, and with new day we get new updates. Gerard Williams III, CEO and founder of Nuvia, also one of the main brains behind Qualcomm's Oryon cores inside Snapdragon X processors, testified before the court that the chip design contains minimal Arm IP despite using the company's instruction set architecture. Williams estimated that "one percent or less" of the final design originated from Arm's IP. Despite Qualcomm using Arm ISA license, the company has very little Arm IP in its SoCs. Most of the Snapdragon X design has been done within Qualcomm's labs, in addition to Nuvia. Williams, who co-founded Nuvia in 2019, explained that while their processors use Arm's Armv8 instruction set, the core design was largely developed from scratch. Nuvia initially secured two non-transferable licenses from Arm: a Technology License Agreement (TLA) and an Architecture License Agreement (ALA).

These agreements allowed the company to develop custom cores while implementing Arm's instruction set. The development team created their own proprietary microarchitecture, including custom data paths and cache systems, rather than using Arm's existing designs. The controversy erupted when Qualcomm acquired Nuvia and announced plans to use the cores in PC processors rather than the initially intended datacenter applications. Arm demanded a renegotiation of licensing terms following the acquisition, which Qualcomm refused, arguing that its existing ALA covered Nuvia's designs. The dispute escalated when Arm revoked Nuvia's licenses in 2022 and terminated Qualcomm's Architecture License Agreement this October. Arm is now seeking the destruction of all Nuvia designs developed before the merger, arguing that the licensing agreements couldn't be transferred through acquisition. Qualcomm builds a case on TLA not being violated since the designs are mostly custom, so we have to see how the ruling proceeds. Arm wants to "hurt" Qualcomm with ALA revoking, and perhaps the final case ends with a settlement, given that Qualcomm is one of Arm's biggest customers.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[TumbleGeorge]

If we break down the architectural puzzle of the chips, we can always find the same small pieces. Law of TumbleGeorge©

 

[JohH]

The statement by Gerard Williams echoes what Jim Keller has said in the past as well.

 

[john_]

Nvidia wants to "hurt" Qualcomm with ALA revoking, and perhaps the final case ends without a settlement, given that Qualcomm's destruction opens up the ARM market for bigger players.

Just a conspiracy theory.....

 

[igormp]

I find it weird how Qcom already had a license to build custom cores (given their previous in-house designs), and so did Nuvia, but when acquiring Nuvia ARM suddenly decided to throw a fit.

I wonder if there's some clause about Qcom being able to sell their designs to 3rd parties, which would mean it now becomes a competitor to ARM itself.

 

[StimpsonJCat]

And what if that "less than 1%" of stolen IP is the sole reason the chip works in the first place???

 

[OkieDan]

I'm rooting against Qualcomm

 

[Dr. Dro]

And what if that "less than 1%" of stolen IP is the sole reason the chip works in the first place???

Doesn't really matter. ARM just wants a quick payout. They'd never stop doing business with Qualcomm because that would knock the wind off their sails. They are by far their biggest customers.

I'm rooting against Qualcomm

I for one have very little love for companies like ARM or RAMBUS which thrive on patents alone. I'll even extend that to Intel and x86 - it's more than time we have governments step in and put an end to instruction set lockout, it's pretty much something that's only slowed the industry and stifled innovation. A CPU is a CPU and it should do a CPU's work, without being restricted to a vendor's way of doing things.

 

[OkieDan]

Doesn't really matter. ARM just wants a quick payout. They'd never stop doing business with Qualcomm because that would knock the wind off their sails. They are by far their biggest customers.



I for one have very little love for companies like ARM or RAMBUS which thrive on patents alone. I'll even extend that to Intel and x86 - it's more than time we have governments step in and put an end to instruction set lockout, it's pretty much something that's only slowed the industry and stifled innovation. A CPU is a CPU and it should do a CPU's work, without being restricted to a vendor's way of doing things.

I have no love for ARM, I just dislike Qualcomm. Patents are good so long as they don't last forever, it is what makes sinking billions into R&D turn a profit. If you can't profit, you don't get the R&D to advance technology at the pace we've had.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I have no love for ARM, I just dislike Qualcomm. Patents are good so long as they don't last forever, it is what makes sinking billions into R&D turn a profit. If you can't profit, you don't get the R&D to advance technology at the pace we've had.

I agree on principle, but patents regarding CPU instruction sets are just designed to ensure perpetual exclusivity and stifle competition at the very long term, I mean, it was just now that the patents on the base SSE and AMD64 instruction sets expired, and that's over 20 years later. To manufacture a CPU that would match the original Athlon64's instruction sets, you'd need to wait until 2026 at a bare minimum, and that's if someone's motivated to design a processor around those limitations.

 

[Leiesoldat]

This is a matter of contract law and how the licenses were setup. Feelings on how one company is acting is immaterial in this case.

Based on the article, Nuvia negotiated two (2) not-able-to-be-transferred license agreements with ARM when they were still doing business as a separate company. Qualcomm bought Nuvia and decided that Qualcomm's current license agreement with ARM covered the aforementioned not-to-be-transferred license agreement at Nuvia. The problem here is that Qualcomm is deciding for ARM how the license agreements to use ARM's work are implemented without asking ARM about it. The only entity that can say how their work can be used is ARM not Qualcomm.

 

[mrnagant]

This is a matter of contract law and how the licenses were setup. Feelings on how one company is acting is immaterial in this case.

Based on the article, Nuvia negotiated two (2) not-able-to-be-transferred license agreements with ARM when they were still doing business as a separate company. Qualcomm bought Nuvia and decided that Qualcomm's current license agreement with ARM covered the aforementioned not-to-be-transferred license agreement at Nuvia. The problem here is that Qualcomm is deciding for ARM how the license agreements to use ARM's work are implemented without asking ARM about it. The only entity that can say how their work can be used is ARM not Qualcomm.

But apparently less than 1% of ARMs work is even in this product. So ARM is arguing over that 1%. ARM tried negotiation and maybe it was beyond what was reasonable. Maybe ARMs request was as if it was 100% their design? Is that fair? Nah. If >99% of the design is your own, the new suggested terms are not favorable to you (Qualcomm) how do you proceed? Court. You let someone else decide. Both companies are looking out for what they feel is their best interest.

I for one hope this hurts ARM, and slingshots RISCV forward.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

I agree on principle, but patents regarding CPU instruction sets are just designed to ensure perpetual exclusivity and stifle competition at the very long term, I mean, it was just now that the patents on the base SSE and AMD64 instruction sets expired, and that's over 20 years later. To manufacture a CPU that would match the original Athlon64's instruction sets, you'd need to wait until 2026 at a bare minimum, and that's if someone's motivated to design a processor around those limitations.

How old is architectures doesn't matter. There is always a good application to be found for components that do not require leading the performance charts for the day, but are easy and cheap to manufacture.

 

[redeye]

Of less than 1% of arm is in it, remove it. Problem solved!.

funny thing, they can not… because it it’s then broken, you know , like removing the battery in a ICE car… a battery is only about 1% of the car, remove it and it does not work (ok, you could push a standard car… but…)