Comment by jasoneckert
1 year ago
By the end of Day 3, it seemed quite clear that Qualcomm's legal team and position was far ahead of ARM's. I feel the following snippet sums up the whole week:
"Qualcomm’s counsel turned Arm’s Piano analogy on its head. Arm compared its ISA to a Piano Keyboard design during the opening statement and used it throughout the trial. It claimed that no matter how big or small the Piano is, the keyboard design remains the same and is covered by its license. Qualcomm’s counsel extended that analogy to show how ridiculous it would be to say that because you designed the keyboard, you own all the pianos in the world. Suggesting that is what Arm is trying to do."
Source: https://www.tantraanalyst.com/ta/qualcomm-vs-arm-trial-day-3...
This is really confusing me. Is Arm seriously claiming that all design work that makes use of their ISA is derivative work? I feel like I have to be misunderstanding something.
Wouldn't that be similar to the Google v Oracle Java API case except the claim would be even stronger - that all programs making use of the Java API were derivative works of the Java API and thus subject to licensing arrangements with Oracle?
Or similarly, a hypothetical claim by Intel that a compiler such as LLVM is derivative work of the x86 ISA.
That can't possibly be right. What have I misunderstood about this situation?
> Or similarly, a hypothetical claim by Intel that a compiler such as LLVM is derivative work of the x86 ISA.
Intel has been lenient toward compiler implementers, but their stance is that emulation of x86 instructions still under patent (e.g., later SSE, AVX512) is infringing if not done under a license agreement. This has had negative implications for, for example, Microsoft's x86 emulation on ARM Windows devices.
(I'm guessing Apple probably did the right thing and ponied up the license fees.)
Yeah, I did a double-take when I read that too - but that does seem to be the case. From a different article [^1]:
> "Throughout expert testimony, Arm has been asserting that all Arm-compliant CPUs are derivatives of the Arm instruction set architecture (ISA)."
> "Arm countered with an examination of the similarities in the register-transfer language (RTL) code, which is used in the design of integrated circuits, of the latest Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite processors, the pre-acquisition Nuvia Phoenix processor, and the Arm ISA (commonly referred to as the Arm Arm)."
Were they trying to argue that the RTL is too similar to the pseudocode in the ARM ARM or something?? That is absolutely crazy. (Of course, [when we have a license agreement and] you publish a public specification for the interface, I am going to use it to implement the interface. What do you expect me to do, implement the ARM ISA without looking at the spec?)
edit: Wow, I guess this really is what they were arguing?? Look at the points from Gerard's testimony [^2]. That is absolutely crazy.
[^1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tiriasresearch/2024/12/19/arm-s...
[^2]: https://www.tantraanalyst.com/ta/qualcomm-vs-arm-trial-day-2...
I would assume (but don't actually know) that compiler authors make extensive use of the (publicly available) ARM as well. But claiming that any associated llvm backends are a derivative work seems absurd to me.
I really feel like I must have misunderstood something here.
Well they did lose the case. Whatever they were contending was clearly incorrect.
Bloomberg article indicates the jury is still out on the question of whether or not Nuvia breached the license. They only agreed that Qualcomm's own ALA covers use of the tech in the event that they happen to possess it.
In other words, Nuvia failing to destroy the designs might or might not have been a breach of contract. At least if I understand all of this correctly. But I feel like I must be missing some key details.
Actually Sun v Microsoft in the late 90s.
Is Arm seriously claiming that all design work that makes use of their ISA is derivative work?
I assume Arm has some patents on the ISA [1] and the only way to get a license to them is to sign something that effectively says all your work exists at Arm's sufferance. After that we're just negotiating the price.
[1] You and I hate this but it's probably valid in the US.
Qualcomm already had a license for ARMs patents. An older licence with much better terms.
1 reply →
Wholeheartedly agree. I understand where ARM is coming from, but my god the legal team from both parties were night and day apart. And from evidences ARM isn't even asking for a lot more money. They are likely fighting this from principle, but their explanation were weak, very weak. ( They were even worst then Apple during the Apple vs Qualcomm case )
I thought the whole thing Qualcomm was way more professional. ARM's case was that what they think was written in the contract, what they "should" have written in contract and what Qualcomm shows clearly contradict.
It is more of a lesson for ARM to learn. And now the damage has been done. This also makes me think who was pushing this lawsuit. Softbank ?
I also gained more respect to Qualcomm. After what they showed Apple vs Qualcomm's case and here.
Side Note: ARM's Design has caught on. The Cortex X5 is close to Apple's Design. We should have news about X6 soon.
> ARM isn't even asking for a lot more money
I thought the entire point of this was that Arm was trying to prevent Qualcomm from switching away from products that fall under the TLA. Isn't revenue from TLA fees a huge difference from that of ALA fees?
Yes, that is correct.
And here is an update from [1] Reuter
"I don't think either side had a clear victory or would have had a clear victory if this case is tried again," Noreika told the parties."
After more than nine hours of deliberations over two days, the eight-person jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the question of whether startup Nuvia breached the terms of its license with Arm.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-jury-deadlocked-arm-trial-a...
My personal first hint was when ARM, the plaintiff in a contract case, demanded a jury trial.
When your contracts are airtight, you usually want a bench trial. Then the defendant demands a jury.