ARM helped Nuvia develop a core for servers where ARM wanted more marketshare. Qualcomm buys Nuvia and decides to put the Nuvia core in laptops and phones first.
Now of course, ARM is not happy about that. They spent resources to help Nuvia develop the core for servers. Now Qualcomm is using the Nuvia core to compete with stock ARM Cortex designs in phones, laptops, and servers.
ARM makes money from ISA and stock-ARM core licensing. They make way more money if you use their stock cores than if you only use their ISA. Oryon would only be using the ISA. Apple SoCs also use only the ISA.
Not only does ARM lose money from Qualcomm switching from Cortex cores to Oryon cores, they now have a legitimate competitor for Cortex SoCs other than Apple.
Qualcomm was also the the strongest lobbyist against the Nvidia/ARM deal. They don't want the competition from stock ARM cores backed by Nvidia. They don't want to compete with a combined Nvidia+ARM. They just want to compete with stock ARM cores with their Nuvia cores.
Other ARM vendors like Mediatek, Samsung have no ability to create better cores than Nuvia's cores. They can only rely on stock ARM core designs. Therefore, Qualcomm's Nuvia-derived cores should always be the high end* while other ARM vendors can only fight in the mid-range, which have much lower margins. Had Nvidia acquired ARM, Qualcomm would have been competing against ARM + Nvidia IP + Nvidia money.
I actually bought some Qualcomm stocks because I saw how Qualcomm outmaneuvered ARM.
*Assuming that stock ARM cores won't surpass Qualcomm's Nuvia-derived cores
I have not heard anything about ARM helping Nuvia in any way.
The legal complaint of ARM has been that the license they had granted to Nuvia was limited in scope, i.e. it allowed Nuvia to only design a core for server CPUs, so as soon as Nuvia has repurposed that core, the existing ARM license has been lawfully terminated.
Moreover, ARM has argued that even if the buyer of Nuvia, Qualcomm, has an ARM license for CPUs that can be used in laptops, this license is not applicable to the Nuvia cores, because a significant part of their design has already happened under the Nuvia license, so it has become illegal after that license had been terminated.
So ARM wants that Qualcomm should either buy a new, more expensive license, or destroy all the design work leading to the Nuvia cores and start a new cleanroom design of laptop cores, to be used perhaps in their 2029 laptop products.
Without access to the text of the secret contracts between ARM and Qualcomm and between ARM and Nuvia, it is impossible to decide which of the legal arguments of Qualcomm or of ARM are a complete BS.
Normally such contracts should have been unambiguous enough that such a legal fight should have never been possible, but it seems that at least one of the parties has concluded that it is possible to twist the meaning of the contracts according to their business interests.
In any case, conditioning a design license in function of the application domain seems abusive. What could be acceptable would be only a per-device royalty fee that is computed differently depending on the application domain.
Even if ARM's legal reasoning has a relatively low chance of success, I suspect the likely difference in the value of the contracts is enough that it's worth them trying anyway, either to cause enough of a threat to extract some kind of settlement from Qualcomm or for a chance of a really big payout. It's probably not a great long-term plan: such actions are likely to hasten work on RISC-V alternatives at Qualcomm and all the other manufacturers witnessing the attempt.
The licenses provided Nuvia access to specific Arm architecture, designs, intellectual property, and support in exchange for payment of licensing fees and royalties on future server products that include processor cores based on Arm’s architecture, designs, or related intellectual property.
Arm provided preferential support for Nuvia’s development efforts, with Arm seeking to accelerate research and development in next-generation processors for data center servers to support that sector’s transition to Arm technology.
Anyone knows where the claim that the Nuvia licence was server-specifc comes from? This seems to be a bad copy-pasta from the Reuters article (which does not claim this), and no company ever claimed this AFAIK.
Edit: the answer can be found in the court documents, here Qualcomm's Sept 22 answers to Arm's claims: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798... ; the gist is that Arm claims Nuvia's licencing fee was higher than Qualcomm's because it was negotiated with the intent of making server chips. Qualcomm admits as much:
> Defendants further admit that NUVIA and ARM intended the licensing fees and royalties set forth in the NUVIA ALA to apply to future server products, not products for other markets
How does ARM license the ISA? Isn’t this cloneable like the shape of an API? Intel never permitted the 586 pentium clones. Why does ARM get this veto if the cores are developed from scratch?
I understand that in the Nuvia case they were not developed from scratch. I just don’t understand why Apple and Qualcomm don’t just remove ARM licensed tech from their chips and maintain ISA compatibility with clean room implementations.
ARM has patents on various parts of the ISA itself (the same applies to x86: the main difference is x86 patents are well enough split between AMD and Intel they are essentially forced to cross-license). You can't make a compatible version without a patent license at least. (And the ISAs have evolved since they were first made, with new patents involved: you can now make a very old version of an ARM core without a license, but such a chip would be irrelevant for most anything today).
Afaik the Ex Apple folks did not use the ARM cores - they developed their own from scratch after the learnings they got from Samsung for their first ARM SoC in the iPhone and later their own A series.
> For years, ARM wanted to get its CPU instruction set into notebooks and desktop PCs. Now, for the first time, there is a realistic opportunity and ARM is torpedoing it to get a bigger slice of the pie.
What’s with the heavy handed pro-Qualcomm/anti-ARM bias in this news piece?
My interpretation is obvious breach of contract by Qualcomm. Seems very cut and dry from the facts laid out in this very same article.
I have no skin in this race, just thought it was odd.
> Seems very cut and dry from the facts laid out in this very same article.
It's not quite that simple.
Qualcomm has a separate license from ARM that allows doing all the things they are currently doing with Nuvia IP. ARM claims that this license does not cover Nuvia IP, and that since Nuvia broke the terms of their license, all that IP needs to be destroyed. Qualcomm claims that they bought the IP separately from any license, and that they can just continue using it under the terms of their own license, and that no term in that license prevents Qualcomm from using the Nuvia IP under it.
The issue is at least murky enough that no court has granted ARM an injunction over it.
> My interpretation is obvious breach of contract by Qualcomm
I’d be inclined to say the opposite based on the German article linked in this articles. Qualcomm has its own architecture license in addition to the now expired Nuvia one and can’t really figure out what arm is objecting to precisely aside from wanting money
Both sides are playing hardball. The likely outcome is probably a settlement and all the legal wrestling is just negotiation tactics. We're talking about two companies whose primary business model is licensing intellectual property; so they both know how to play this game very well. Neither Qualcomm nor ARM directly manufacturers or sells products; they both make money from licensing stuff to third parties. And it looks like Qualcomm is cutting some corners there and is now putting their customers on the spot with this. Which no doubt is not going down well with those.
So, my guess is that Qualcomm will try to eventually fix this by throwing money at it and striking some deal with ARM. The question is just going to be how much. ARM is just twisting their arm (no pun intended) with this. But I agree that at face value they are well within their rights to escalate this. And given that their core business is selling ARM licenses, making sure that they get their money from Qualcomm kind of is their core business.
> What’s with the heavy handed pro-Qualcomm/anti-ARM bias in this news piece?
Pro shiny new devices and moving Windows into an ARM future, vs. Anti throwing away loads of work/tech over IP squabbles/greed (whoever is responsible for it)?
From the environmental point of view, it's incredible that they want these machines, built with so much energy and resources (e.g. a chip fab uses a lot of water [1], and a laptop is more than just chips), to just be destroyed...
The new ARM laptops are looking very promising: similar to the new ARM macbooks. So PC tech enthusiasts/media are gonna be on Qualcomm's side here, at least while it's framed as 'ARM is trying to stop these from actually being sold'.
The industry is looking and taking notes: Qualcomm a major IP holder doesn't want to pay for IP while ARM prefer money over the success of its ecosystem.
RISC-V immediately comes to mind as a long term alternative. Thank you ARM and Qualcomm.
Would it be any better if Qualcomm developed their own proprietary RISC-V cores with proprietary/patented extensions that most software would be reliant on? Currently Qualcomm and ARM are somewhat balancing each other out, with RISC-V if Qualcomm got significantly ahead they'd probably be in a position where it would be impossible for anyone to compete against them (I can't really see any reason for them to make their extensions freely available to their competitors).
They helpfully send the whole article before asking you to enable tracking cookies. You can e.g. use reader mode to read the article. This mostly seems like an oversight on their part though.
Yep, you can only select "Zustimmen (agree)" for "Datenverarbeitungen von Werbeanbietern einschl. personalisierter Werbung mit Profilbildung (data processing by advertising providers including personalized advertising with profiling)."
I was disappointed to find this out after navigating through text written in an unfamiliar language and a complicated cookie dialog comparable to this [1]. German cookie dialog on an English article, is that even legal?
Without going into the details, I suspect this is all Qualcomm's fault. There's a reason that Apple had to go in-house to get a high quality ARM system working.
My guess is that, when Nuvia was bought off by Qualcomm, the license from ARM was no longer valid, since Nuvia ceased to exist, or rather, the license is non-transferable.
The conflict is over whether the license is transferable. Arm never would have sold that license to Qualcomm, especially with those terms, especially for that purpose.
Qualcomm bought a company because they had a license arm wouldn’t sell them. It comes down to subtleties in the contracts.
The issue is the application limitation of the license.
ARM granted Nuvia the license for server applications. Typically that license transfers, but ARM is taking umbrage with Qualcomm using the Nuvia developed tech (licensed for server applications) and applying it to consumer / handheld.
Did you read the article? It seems like ARM is against Qualcomm using a custom ARM core developed by Nuvia for licensing reasons.
Clearly the "off the shelf" processor designs ARM is producing aren't getting anywhere near the performance that Apple is getting from their own designs. Qualcomm are trying to compete by using the Nuvia design, and ARM aren't happy.
I have to wonder what value ARM are actually adding here. They want more money (doesn't everyone), but if they're unable to actually design performant processors then all they're really licensing is the instruction set. How long until the manufacturers realise that they can switch to RiscV and not pay ARM anything?
I don't think RISC-V is mature enough to warrant manufacturers moving to this ISA. If this was the case, we'd already have powerful RISC-V portable computers.
Readit News
Now of course, ARM is not happy about that. They spent resources to help Nuvia develop the core for servers. Now Qualcomm is using the Nuvia core to compete with stock ARM Cortex designs in phones, laptops, and servers.
ARM makes money from ISA and stock-ARM core licensing. They make way more money if you use their stock cores than if you only use their ISA. Oryon would only be using the ISA. Apple SoCs also use only the ISA.
Not only does ARM lose money from Qualcomm switching from Cortex cores to Oryon cores, they now have a legitimate competitor for Cortex SoCs other than Apple.
Qualcomm was also the the strongest lobbyist against the Nvidia/ARM deal. They don't want the competition from stock ARM cores backed by Nvidia. They don't want to compete with a combined Nvidia+ARM. They just want to compete with stock ARM cores with their Nuvia cores.
Other ARM vendors like Mediatek, Samsung have no ability to create better cores than Nuvia's cores. They can only rely on stock ARM core designs. Therefore, Qualcomm's Nuvia-derived cores should always be the high end* while other ARM vendors can only fight in the mid-range, which have much lower margins. Had Nvidia acquired ARM, Qualcomm would have been competing against ARM + Nvidia IP + Nvidia money.
I actually bought some Qualcomm stocks because I saw how Qualcomm outmaneuvered ARM.
*Assuming that stock ARM cores won't surpass Qualcomm's Nuvia-derived cores
The legal complaint of ARM has been that the license they had granted to Nuvia was limited in scope, i.e. it allowed Nuvia to only design a core for server CPUs, so as soon as Nuvia has repurposed that core, the existing ARM license has been lawfully terminated.
Moreover, ARM has argued that even if the buyer of Nuvia, Qualcomm, has an ARM license for CPUs that can be used in laptops, this license is not applicable to the Nuvia cores, because a significant part of their design has already happened under the Nuvia license, so it has become illegal after that license had been terminated.
So ARM wants that Qualcomm should either buy a new, more expensive license, or destroy all the design work leading to the Nuvia cores and start a new cleanroom design of laptop cores, to be used perhaps in their 2029 laptop products.
Without access to the text of the secret contracts between ARM and Qualcomm and between ARM and Nuvia, it is impossible to decide which of the legal arguments of Qualcomm or of ARM are a complete BS.
Normally such contracts should have been unambiguous enough that such a legal fight should have never been possible, but it seems that at least one of the parties has concluded that it is possible to twist the meaning of the contracts according to their business interests.
In any case, conditioning a design license in function of the application domain seems abusive. What could be acceptable would be only a per-device royalty fee that is computed differently depending on the application domain.
Edit: the answer can be found in the court documents, here Qualcomm's Sept 22 answers to Arm's claims: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.798... ; the gist is that Arm claims Nuvia's licencing fee was higher than Qualcomm's because it was negotiated with the intent of making server chips. Qualcomm admits as much:
> Defendants further admit that NUVIA and ARM intended the licensing fees and royalties set forth in the NUVIA ALA to apply to future server products, not products for other markets
I understand that in the Nuvia case they were not developed from scratch. I just don’t understand why Apple and Qualcomm don’t just remove ARM licensed tech from their chips and maintain ISA compatibility with clean room implementations.
What is stopping that?
What stock Cortex designs in laptops and servers? If ARM had provided good chips for those uses, none of this would have been a big deal!
What’s with the heavy handed pro-Qualcomm/anti-ARM bias in this news piece?
My interpretation is obvious breach of contract by Qualcomm. Seems very cut and dry from the facts laid out in this very same article.
I have no skin in this race, just thought it was odd.
It's not quite that simple.
Qualcomm has a separate license from ARM that allows doing all the things they are currently doing with Nuvia IP. ARM claims that this license does not cover Nuvia IP, and that since Nuvia broke the terms of their license, all that IP needs to be destroyed. Qualcomm claims that they bought the IP separately from any license, and that they can just continue using it under the terms of their own license, and that no term in that license prevents Qualcomm from using the Nuvia IP under it.
The issue is at least murky enough that no court has granted ARM an injunction over it.
And maybe the nuvia license gives more favorable royalties than the Qualcomm one?
Very informative, thanks!
I’d be inclined to say the opposite based on the German article linked in this articles. Qualcomm has its own architecture license in addition to the now expired Nuvia one and can’t really figure out what arm is objecting to precisely aside from wanting money
https://www.heise.de/news/ARM-verklagt-Qualcomm-wegen-Lizenz...
So, my guess is that Qualcomm will try to eventually fix this by throwing money at it and striking some deal with ARM. The question is just going to be how much. ARM is just twisting their arm (no pun intended) with this. But I agree that at face value they are well within their rights to escalate this. And given that their core business is selling ARM licenses, making sure that they get their money from Qualcomm kind of is their core business.
Pro shiny new devices and moving Windows into an ARM future, vs. Anti throwing away loads of work/tech over IP squabbles/greed (whoever is responsible for it)?
[1] https://www.theverge.com/22628925/water-semiconductor-shorta...
RISC-V immediately comes to mind as a long term alternative. Thank you ARM and Qualcomm.
Archive link: https://archive.is/kGByU.
Yes they're asses...
> There's no privacy-preserving way to read the article.
.. but, viewing with incognito mode should destroy the cookies on exit, and if you're worried about IP tracking, VPN?
I was disappointed to find this out after navigating through text written in an unfamiliar language and a complicated cookie dialog comparable to this [1]. German cookie dialog on an English article, is that even legal?
[1]: https://cookieconsentspeed.run
The laptops are supposed to make their retail debut in the next day or two.
I think a court would be crazy to accept the demand from the headline which doesn't benefit either litigant.
Now Qualcomm bought Nuvia, but ARM says it can’t use Nuvia's core with its own arch license - it must pay a second time.
Qualcomm bought a company because they had a license arm wouldn’t sell them. It comes down to subtleties in the contracts.
ARM granted Nuvia the license for server applications. Typically that license transfers, but ARM is taking umbrage with Qualcomm using the Nuvia developed tech (licensed for server applications) and applying it to consumer / handheld.
Clearly the "off the shelf" processor designs ARM is producing aren't getting anywhere near the performance that Apple is getting from their own designs. Qualcomm are trying to compete by using the Nuvia design, and ARM aren't happy.
I have to wonder what value ARM are actually adding here. They want more money (doesn't everyone), but if they're unable to actually design performant processors then all they're really licensing is the instruction set. How long until the manufacturers realise that they can switch to RiscV and not pay ARM anything?