News Qualcomm says its Oryon CPU cores have 1% or less of Arm's original technology — cores in Snapdragon X PC chips are almost entirely custom

[Admin]

Qualcomm's custom Oryon CPU cores are based on the Armv8 instruction set architecture, but they contain only about 1% of actual Arm physical IP, says developer.

Qualcomm says its Oryon CPU cores have 1% or less of Arm's original technology — cores in Snapdragon X PC chips are almost entirely custom : Read more

 

[Pierce2623]

The concept that any chip using Aarch64 is only 1% ARM technology is ludicrous.

 

[dCasualGamer]

The concept that any chip using Aarch64 is only 1% ARM technology is ludicrous.

yeah, i agree.. What is being licensed is the instruction set with ARM providing a baseline (or reference design). A company modifying an baseline design does not get to claim it to be "its own".

 

[JamesJones44]

The concept that any chip using Aarch64 is only 1% ARM technology is ludicrous.

Reading the main article, I believe the quote is in reference to base ARM reference designs, for which that is at least conceivable.

 

[usertests]

The concept that any chip using Aarch64 is only 1% ARM technology is ludicrous.

I can imagine a very tortured definition of original/custom to get there. Like they shifted some design elements around, used a different amount of cache than the default, etc.

 

[thestryker]

The Nuvia core designs likely have nothing to do with Arm's designs. That would be like saying Granite Ridge and Cypress Cove are the same because they have the same instruction sets. I'd imagine the Nuvia cores probably have more in common with the Apple's Firestorm cores than anything Arm designs.

Arm seems to be banking entirely on >0 = ours to control. Perhaps that's how their licensing agreements are written, but if that holds up it seems extremely dangerous for their long term survival.

 

[Steve Nord_]

Like seriously, the compiler only happens to work using ARM64 ASM because of our patches, it's crazy in there. We're a rhythm game with AVX2 extensions.

 

[OneMoreUser]

I can imagine a very tortured definition of original/custom to get there. Like they shifted some design elements around, used a different amount of cache than the default, etc.

I think you're imagination is playing tricks on you. The way a CPU is designed makes for there being many ways to optimize and do things ie. just like baking a cake, there is many ways to make one including many ingredients to chose from and you still can end up with a cake.

 

[Pierce2623]

The Nuvia core designs likely have nothing to do with Arm's designs. That would be like saying Granite Ridge and Cypress Cove are the same because they have the same instruction sets. I'd imagine the Nuvia cores probably have more in common with the Apple's Firestorm cores than anything Arm designs.

Arm seems to be banking entirely on >0 = ours to control. Perhaps that's how their licensing agreements are written, but if that holds up it seems extremely dangerous for their long term survival.

Well, the main point I’m making that I guess is somewhat difficult to understand without being a total nerd is that Aarch64 based chips are technologically tighter integrated with the ISA than x86 chips. Also it’s very different from the current situation in x86 where AMD has contributed almost as much as Intel over time. Aarch64 is an ecosystem fully owned by ARM built for their technological benefit. It’s simply not legal for a massive multinational to buy out a small startup and take over license terms only offered as a helping hand to small startup companies and then on top of that, use that license to sell products outside the market the license applied too. Then on top of that, Qualcomm is trying to now sell their cellphone chips under that license too. No judge is going to let Qualcomm get away with this. Qualcomm is going to owe ARM at least a hundred million dollars before this is all said and done.

 

[bit_user]

The concept that any chip using Aarch64 is only 1% ARM technology is ludicrous.

What he's talking about is the actual chip design. So, the TLA would've given Nuvia access to the "source code" of ARM's in-house designed cores and allowed Nuvia to copy-and-paste parts of this source code into their own designs. What he's saying is that less than 1% of Nuvia's chips consist of copy-and-pasted source code from ARM.

The Architecture License Agreement is what defines the ISA and system architecture, some of which is patented. The purpose of the ALA is simply to let them make a compatible implementation. If the ALA is the only thing you have, then you need to come up with 100% of the source code (either in-house, or maybe you can license generic stuff like memory controllers from someone like Synopsis).

The difference between the two is essential one of copyrights vs. patents. The TLA gives them access to copyright IP, while the ALA just gives them the rights to use the patents.

 

[bit_user]

I can imagine a very tortured definition of original/custom to get there. Like they shifted some design elements around, used a different amount of cache than the default, etc.

Copyright law defines this as a derivative work. You can't simply take a copyrighted poem, toggle the capitalization of every letter, and then claim it as an original work. Even though you touched every single letter, making it a non-verbatim copy, it's still a derivative work.

 

[thestryker]

It’s simply not legal for a massive multinational to buy out a small startup and take over license terms only offered as a helping hand to small startup companies and then on top of that, use that license to sell products outside the market the license applied too. Then on top of that, Qualcomm is trying to now sell their cellphone chips under that license too. No judge is going to let Qualcomm get away with this. Qualcomm is going to owe ARM at least a hundred million dollars before this is all said and done.

You don't seem to understand the situation at all.

Qualcomm was never using Nuvia's license and was never planning on it because they have their own architecture license. Arm is essentially arguing that Qualcomm can't do that because the technology agreement applies to the Nuvia cores. Qualcomm is saying that Nuvia didn't use the technology agreement for developing the cores.

Arm has also since canceled Qualcomm's architecture license which no court is going to look kindly on given it was well after the court dates were set and could easily be seen as trying to force a settlement.

 

[bit_user]

I'd imagine the Nuvia cores probably have more in common with the Apple's Firestorm cores than anything Arm designs.

Yeah, I find it funny that Apple isn't trying to sue the pants off of Qualcomm! I have a really hard time believing some of the core design team from Apple designed CPU cores using the same ISA and roughly targeted at the same application domain, and yet they contain no infringements of Apple patents? That's absurd! Apple filed tons of patents on their CPU cores & SoCs, which is how some people have managed to piece together so much about how they work and what makes them special!

 

[bit_user]

It’s simply not legal for a massive multinational to buy out a small startup and take over license terms only offered as a helping hand to small startup companies

Literally nobody is saying they did. Qualcomm is saying that its pre-existing licenses should cover the IP it got from Nuvia, not that it inherited Nuvia's licenses.

on top of that, Qualcomm is trying to now sell their cellphone chips under that license too.

Qualcomm had pre-existing ALAs for developing ARM cores for phones and server CPUs.

 

[jlake3]

You don't seem to understand the situation at all.

Qualcomm was never using Nuvia's license and was never planning on it because they have their own architecture license. Arm is essentially arguing that Qualcomm can't do that because the technology agreement applies to the Nuvia cores. Qualcomm is saying that Nuvia didn't use the technology agreement for developing the cores.

Arm has also since canceled Qualcomm's architecture license which no court is going to look kindly on given it was well after the court dates were set and could easily be seen as trying to force a settlement.

They mixed up which ALA Qualcomm wanted to keep, but the point is solid: not all ALAs are the same terms and companies cannot transfer derivative works between any two ALAs to get better terms without ARM’s blessing. Derivative works are produced under a certain license; simply possessing an architecture license doesn’t grant the right to do anything you want with AArch64 with IP of any origin.

Also, regarding the “>0 = ours to control”; License terms for tech and software can be sticky in that kind of way. If you are using the IP of others, “it’s only a small part of the project” is not a defence for violating their conditions for use.

 

[bit_user]

Also, regarding the “>0 = ours to control”; License terms for tech and software can be sticky in that kind of way. If you are using the IP of others, “it’s only a small part of the project” is not a defence for violating their conditions for use.

It is possible to purge the problematic IP from their designs, providing they still know where it is, and end up with something that's no longer considered a derivative work. This has happened with software projects, on numerous occasions.

 

[thestryker]

They mixed up which ALA Qualcomm wanted to keep, but the point is solid: not all ALAs are the same terms and companies cannot transfer derivative works between any two ALAs to get better terms without ARM’s blessing. Derivative works are produced under a certain license; simply possessing an architecture license doesn’t grant the right to do anything you want with AArch64 with IP of any origin.

You're making assumptions about the licensing agreements which aren't based on public knowledge so this is either pure guesswork or you have inside knowledge you probably shouldn't be sharing on a public forum.

The architecture licenses generally cover a specific range of Arm architecture IP and product use case. Qualcomm's ALA covers all use cases and the same Arm architecture used in the Nuvia cores. If you notice in the reporting of the trial Arm hasn't been trying to say the architecture license is the problem but that the cores are covered under the technology license.

 

[usertests]

Copyright law defines this as a derivative work. You can't simply take a copyrighted poem, toggle the capitalization of every letter, and then claim it as an original work. Even though you touched every single letter, making it a non-verbatim copy, it's still a derivative work.

Of course, that's not what the lawyers on the side being sued are going to say.

 

[jlake3]

You're making assumptions about the licensing agreements which aren't based on public knowledge so this is either pure guesswork or you have inside knowledge you probably shouldn't be sharing on a public forum.

From reporting on this site, two hops from the current article, a public statement from ARM:

Arm on Wednesday said it had filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm and Nuvia for breach of license agreements and trademark infringement. The CPU architecture developer wants to destroy Nuvia Phoenix core design, as well as fair compensation for the usage of its trademark.

Arm granted Nuvia a Technology License Agreement (TLA) and Architecture License Agreement (ALA) in Fall 2019, letting the company modify its off-the-shelf cores (TLA) as well as design custom cores based on Arm’s select architectures (ALA). However, these licenses were granted based on certain terms and could not be transferred to Qualcomm without Arm’s consent. Furthermore, Qualcomm’s own ALA and TLA Arm licenses do not cover products featuring Arm-based technologies developed by third parties under different Arm licenses, such as Nuvia’s custom Phoenix cores described by the company in mid-2020.

As it turns out, Qualcomm transferred Nuvia’s Arm licenses to a newly formed entity after it purchased the company last March without Arm’s consent, which Arm says is a standard restriction under Arm’s license agreements. Since the companies could not come to terms, Arm terminated Nuvia’s licenses in March 2022. Instead of getting a new license, Nuvia and Qualcomm continued to develop processors based on the Phoenix core, which is a breach of license agreements, according to Arm.

(Emphasis mine).

According to ARM, Qualcomm's possession of an ALA does not cover derivative IP that originated under licenses other than their own. Unless ARM is lying about this, Qualcomm would be in breach of their ALA by using the Qualcomm license to produce or further develop IP originally developed under Nuvia's license when Nuvia was an independent entity, even if Qualcomm is licensed for ARMv8.7-A and for making both laptop and smartphone chips.

 

[bit_user]

Of course, that's not what the lawyers on the side being sued are going to say.

Yeah, but as long as ARM has any claim to it being a derivative work, I think Qualcomm will have difficulty achieving a clean victory. I hope the amount of ARM's IP that's still present at least influences the size of the damages, if ARM does win on this point.

 

[thestryker]

According to ARM, Qualcomm's possession of an ALA does not cover derivative IP that originated under licenses other than their own. Unless ARM is lying about this, Qualcomm would be in breach of their ALA by using the Qualcomm license to produce or further develop IP originally developed under Nuvia's license when Nuvia was an independent entity, even if Qualcomm is licensed for ARMv8.7-A and for making both laptop and smartphone chips.

I have a hard time believing Qualcomm's lawyers wouldn't have seen that coming if it was the case, but we're talking corporations and they do indecipherable things all the time.