> Since the license the Nuvia IP was built on became void when the company changed ownership, the IP is not built on a valid license.
Here's where the wording gets confusing.
ARM has their own IP: their core designs, ISA (?), etc.
ARM also has licensing of that IP.
ARM also has platform licensing: allowing others to implement their ISA, call themselves ARM-compatible, etc.
Nuvia built a product, with an ARM license (because they wanted to go to market).
Did they also incorporate ARM IP into their design (i.e. extend existing ARM core designs)?
But neither of those should matter... because afaik Qualcomm already has an architecture ARM license (one of the few, ~15). [0]
Consequently, if Qualcomm already has an architecture license to the core Nuvia built on... that's a superset of any license Nuvia had, given that an architecture license allows for unlimited customizability.
Consequently, this feels like ARM trying to defend their (future) revenue by retroactively limiting licenses they already sold.
> Did they also incorporate ARM IP into their design (i.e. extend existing ARM core designs)?
Well yes, they created a modified architecture compatible with ARM instruction-set, by using extensive access to ARM's IP and resources.
Agree on the rest, except that ARM obviously doesn't retroactively limit the license they gave to Nuvia, these terms were already part of Nuvia's license from the start.
From the court-documents it seems that Qualcomm doesn't argue the interpretation of those terms, they argue that they should not be enforced.
> Agree on the rest, except that ARM obviously doesn't retroactively limit the license they gave to Nuvia, these terms were already part of Nuvia's license from the start.
The retroactive part is the concept of not being able to transfer the Nuvia IP.
> From the court-documents it seems that Qualcomm doesn't argue the interpretation of those terms, they argue that they should not be enforced.
Earlier you said the Nuvia license was void. Isn't the meaning of void that no terms will be enforced?
Here's where the wording gets confusing.
ARM has their own IP: their core designs, ISA (?), etc.
ARM also has licensing of that IP.
ARM also has platform licensing: allowing others to implement their ISA, call themselves ARM-compatible, etc.
Nuvia built a product, with an ARM license (because they wanted to go to market).
Did they also incorporate ARM IP into their design (i.e. extend existing ARM core designs)?
But neither of those should matter... because afaik Qualcomm already has an architecture ARM license (one of the few, ~15). [0]
Consequently, if Qualcomm already has an architecture license to the core Nuvia built on... that's a superset of any license Nuvia had, given that an architecture license allows for unlimited customizability.
Consequently, this feels like ARM trying to defend their (future) revenue by retroactively limiting licenses they already sold.
[0] Background https://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/07/a-long-look-at-how-arm-l...