News Qualcomm wins legal battle over Arm — chipmaker didn't violate Arm's chip licensing agreement

[Admin]

Qualcomm celebrates legal victory over Arm in Nuvia-related case.

Qualcomm wins legal battle over Arm — chipmaker didn't violate Arm's chip licensing agreement : Read more

 

[Pierce2623]

I’m mostly curious as to why the article states they’re competivive with Apple, Intel and AMD. The literal only situation where they look good is low TDP multicore. Now tell me who does heavily multithreaded tasks with their laptop turned down to a low TDP. Apple Intel and AMD all have current laptop chips that look like an overall better compromise. Maybe once the inexpensive 8 core variants are available for about $600-$70” they’ll have a more competitive platform. Unfortunately all the inexpensive SKUs have their single core performance neutered to make the top SKUs look better and they won’t even go over their base clock on a single core

 

[abufrejoval]

It seems hard these days to imagine that a non-American company could get justice from an American jury against a domestic darling.

Imagine this case in a Japanese (Softbank) or UK court (ARM).

 

[bit_user]

I’m mostly curious as to why the article states they’re competivive with Apple, Intel and AMD. The literal only situation where they look good is low TDP multicore.

According to this, the X1E-84-100 beats even the top end Lunar Lake (288V) on Cinebench 2024 (ST) by 4.1%. Efficiency-wise, the same matchup shows the Snapdragon delivering 32.2% more points per Watt.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel...its-everyday-efficiency-is-good.893405.0.html
​

If you switch to their Geekbench 6.3 (ST) scores, the 288V squeaks out a 1.1% victory over the X1E-84-100.

It's more telling that Snapdragon is doing this on an older node (i.e. N4P, while Lunar Lake is on N3B). This should make their next gen very interesting. For me, the main question is whether Qualcomm will be able to implement SVE2, or will ARM refuse to grant them an ARMv9-A architecture license (if they don't already have one)?

 

[JamesJones44]

Given the mixed ruling they probably come to some kind of settlement on at significantly more competitive price. One or both side could play hardball, but given both these companies history of settling after this kinds of cases, settlement is what I would put my money on (Qualcomm settled with Apple and Softbank settled with WeWork in 2021).

 

[bit_user]

It seems hard these days to imagine that a non-American company could get justice from an American jury against a domestic darling.

I think Qualcomm isn't a household name in the same way as Apple, Microsoft, or even Intel. I doubt most jury member have special feelings for it, and the judge should disallow the defense to appeal to Qualcomm's American identity. I think it even less likely that a typical jury member would know the nationality of ARM or its owner.

In other words, I think Qualcomm's nationality isn't enough to get them a unanimous verdict.

 

[abufrejoval]

I think Qualcomm isn't a household name in the same way as Apple, Microsoft, or even Intel. I doubt most jury member have special feelings for it, and the judge should disallow the defense to appeal to Qualcomm's American identity. I think it even less likely that a typical jury member would know the nationality of ARM or its owner.

In other words, I think Qualcomm's nationality isn't enough to get them a unanimous verdict.

You name the real issue here: "feelings".

And the tradition focussed jury system was designed to adjudicate cases with local customs and laws in mind where the juror's intimate knowledge of how things really stood between neighbours added value and quality to the decisions made by a court presided by judges much less knowledgable in those aspects.

It just doesn't make sense in abstact international intellectual property disputes, where most jury members have nothing but their gut feeling to contribute.

Qualcomm very clearly thought themselves very clever to "buy" Nuvia via licensing fees not paid to ARM. And that is just as clearly a violation of the spirit of ARM's licensing conditions and thus very bad faith business conduct if you've accepted them.

ARM has segmented its customer market for very good reasons which stem from how they wanted to ensure their economic future. Qualcomm and Nuvia understood those terms when they signed them.

And while I would subscribe to the idea that once a technology becomes so ubiquitous that "the entire planet runs on it", should even be wrestled from the hands that designed it if it's not voluntarily given (e.g. Chrome by Google), in this case it was just a case of Qualcomm's senior management not liking the numbers on their alternate business case, not ARM abusing its power over an ISA.

Quite a few Americans seem to love that type of Wild West "move fast and break things" behaviour, because that's how many tycoon fortunes were made.

As a European from the continent I judge that as the least attractive aspect of a people, some of which have been extremely generous to me personally in the past.

But those Mid-Western folks just didn't show that musky behaviour exemplified by newly arrived South African immigrants, who are not no longer satisfied with their takeover of the US government and feel compelled to post unwarranted advice on how Europe should be run.

Again, the real proof in the pudding would be to have this case run through Japanse and British courts and then compare the results.

Justice clearly isn't blind and carries a flag.

 

[bit_user]

It just doesn't make sense in abstact international intellectual property disputes, where most jury members have nothing but their gut feeling to contribute.

Agreed. There should be a disinterested panel of experts, making these decisions.

Not all US trials are jury trials, mind you. Any appeal would be decided by a 3-judge panel. Furthermore, if I understand correctly, the case should go to the 13th circuit, which specializes in IP law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_judiciary_of_the_United_States#U.S._Courts_of_Appeals
​

Quite a few Americans seem to love that type of Wild West "move fast and break things" behaviour, because that's how many tycoon fortunes were made.

I think that's not a fair characterization, as far as it applies to a jury of ordinary citizens. The trial was held in Delaware, which is a fairly moderate, middle income East Coast state with diverse demographics. Nothing particularly "Wild West" about it.

As a European from the continent I judge that as the least attractive aspect of a people, some of which have been extremely generous to me personally in the past.

There's a selection bias in the Americans you've dealt with. It's not a random sampling, nor does it match the jury pool of this trial.

Again, the real proof in the pudding would be to have this case run through Japanse and British courts and then compare the results.

The Japanese legal system has plenty of its own issues. I can't speak of the civil courts, but they have a > 99% conviction rate against criminal defendants.

 

[Pierce2623]

According to this, the X1E-84-100 beats even the top end Lunar Lake (288V) on Cinebench 2024 (ST) by 4.1%. Efficiency-wise, the same matchup shows the Snapdragon delivering 32.2% more points per Watt.

​

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel...its-everyday-efficiency-is-good.893405.0.html​

​

If you switch to their Geekbench 6.3 (ST) scores, the 288V squeaks out a 1.1% victory over the X1E-84-100.

It's more telling that Snapdragon is doing this on an older node (i.e. N4P, while Lunar Lake is on N3B). This should make their next gen very interesting. For me, the main question is whether Qualcomm will be able to implement SVE2, or will ARM refuse to grant them an ARMv9-A architecture license (if they don't already have one)?

ARM will grant them any license they want IF THEY PAY UP and quit trying to screw around with licensing.

 

[abufrejoval]

The Japanese legal system has plenty of its own issues. I can't speak of the civil courts, but they have a > 99% conviction rate against criminal defendants.

Exactly the reason I put it there 🙂

You could add a Chinese, Russian, Indian and Persian court there as well and eventually come up with white noise.

Which is all meant to highlight that any claim justice was served as globally as the market of these devices is just absurd.

Those jurors could be truly great and wise people, in a case like this it's still a Kangaroo court from the outside.

Our global social codes simply do not allow the overreach the Internet and global information technology enable.

And that does not mean that whoever gets there first should overrule local social codes. Technology will have to adapt long before societies do.

Everything else is agression, I have to agree with the Chinese (and variuos others) there. Especially because I don't like their oligarchy (or any other) replacing democracy.

 

[bit_user]

Those jurors could be truly great and wise people, in a case like this it's still a Kangaroo court from the outside.

I can't speak about how the world sees the US justice system, but I know the UK's courts are held in high regard. It's one of the leading venues for arbitration of commercial cases:

The Commercial Court and Arbitration - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

Details of the Commercial Court in London which is a world leading centre for international arbitration

www.judiciary.uk

So, I think there are better and worse judicial systems. It's not just all noise, in the end.

Another complicating factor is how the laws vary, from one country to the next. Though, I know there are some international treaties governing certain aspects of IP law. However, any court is going to try to reach a decision on the basis of the applicable laws. So, that's an additional degree of freedom.

 

[Pierce2623]

You name the real issue here: "feelings".

And the tradition focussed jury system was designed to adjudicate cases with local customs and laws in mind where the juror's intimate knowledge of how things really stood between neighbours added value and quality to the decisions made by a court presided by judges much less knowledgable in those aspects.

It just doesn't make sense in abstact international intellectual property disputes, where most jury members have nothing but their gut feeling to contribute.

Qualcomm very clearly thought themselves very clever to "buy" Nuvia via licensing fees not paid to ARM. And that is just as clearly a violation of the spirit of ARM's licensing conditions and thus very bad faith business conduct if you've accepted them.

ARM has segmented its customer market for very good reasons which stem from how they wanted to ensure their economic future. Qualcomm and Nuvia understood those terms when they signed them.

And while I would subscribe to the idea that once a technology becomes so ubiquitous that "the entire planet runs on it", should even be wrestled from the hands that designed it if it's not voluntarily given (e.g. Chrome by Google), in this case it was just a case of Qualcomm's senior management not liking the numbers on their alternate business case, not ARM abusing its power over an ISA.

Quite a few Americans seem to love that type of Wild West "move fast and break things" behaviour, because that's how many tycoon fortunes were made.

As a European from the continent I judge that as the least attractive aspect of a people, some of which have been extremely generous to me personally in the past.

But those Mid-Western folks just didn't show that musky behaviour exemplified by newly arrived South African immigrants, who are not no longer satisfied with their takeover of the US government and feel compelled to post unwarranted advice on how Europe should be run.

Again, the real proof in the pudding would be to have this case run through Japanse and British courts and then compare the results.

Justice clearly isn't blind and carries a flag.

You don’t seem to realize it’s mostly Americans talking about how slimy Qualcomm’s behavior is. If the courts decided this way there is a clear legal ground. You don’t seem to realize how courts work if you think the jury just bases thing on their feelings. The jury said they didn’t violate Qualcomm’s original license. The jury DID NOT say they didn’t violate the Nuvia license. There was a hung jury on that aspect.

 

[Pierce2623]

I can't speak about how the world sees the US justice system, but I know the UK's courts are held in high regard. It's one of the leading venues for arbitration of commercial cases:

​

The Commercial Court and Arbitration - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

Details of the Commercial Court in London which is a world leading centre for international arbitration

www.judiciary.uk

​

So, I think there are better and worse judicial systems. It's not just all noise, in the end.

Another complicating factor is how the laws vary, from one country to the next. Though, I know there are some international treaties governing certain aspects of IP law. However, any court is going to try to reach a decision on the basis of the applicable laws. So, that's an additional degree of freedom.

Exactly. The US court system is one of the most fair court systems in the world (which still doesn’t make it particularly fair in the grand scheme of things)

 

[bit_user]

Exactly. The US court system is one of the most fair court systems in the world (which still doesn’t make it particularly fair in the grand scheme of things)

I don't know anything about judicial systems in other countries, although the US and many other countries are based on that of the UK. I do know that in some countries, there are steps above lawyer and below judge, which require additional training, certification, and experience.

For instance, @Aeacus once told me how it works in Estonia:

"in Estonia, justice system has 0 to do with elected politicians. Instead, to become a judge, one must first study in a law school to become lawyer (easy 5 years worth of study). Then lawyer must be part of a law firm to become attorney. Once they are attorney, they have to work as barrister's aid for at least 3 years, to be eligible for barrister's exam. And once that exam has been successfully passed, attorney becomes barrister. Only barrister can work as a judge.

Lawyer is a person who knows the law (finished law school), but doesn't work for a law firm. Also, there is different levels of representation in court between the three. Usually, lawyers aren't allowed to be representative in the court. One must be attorney (working for a law firm) to be able to be representative in court. And in Supreme Court, only barristers have the right to be representatives.

Oh, according to Estonian laws, the attorneys/barristers and the law firm all have personal property liability. This means that the attorney/barrister is more likely to be motivated to do their job well, compared to lawyer."
​

So, that's a lot more professionalization than we have in the US legal system! I know the UK has barristers, though I don't know how it's formally defined.

Also, if you check my link, it's pointing to the UK's system for arbitration of international commercial cases. For business matters, the UK seems to be a popular venue for arbitration. It's seen as more fair than the courts in the countries in which a lot of companies are based or operate.

 

[abufrejoval]

From what little I remember from my university days, where a bit of legal training was required for computer scientists, continental Europe (everyone but the UK) uses Roman law, where the legislated legal code reigns supreme and the notion of "precedents" or "tradition", plays a much lesser role, ideally none (it's the last ELSE clause).

Roman law regulates proactively and lets tradition sort out what's left, if any. Of course existing social code isn't completely ignored, but anything really important better be turned into law first. Precedents then get re-introduced carefully via decisions from upper courts into areas of legal code, where "black and white" aren't that easy, e.g. labour or rental contracts or family law.

It's one of the lasting consequences of Napoleon's invasions and since it was "open source" and subject to the highest and most intense ambitions of philosophers and scolars of the Enlightenment, it turned out to be pretty compatible across Europe generally, even if every country initially forked their own civil code: the EU wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

Before he unrooted Europe's feudal society, traditional or tribal law on the continent generally followed the dynasties and conquests similar to how things worked out in Britain and its colonies.

Jurors only survive as lay assesors in some lesser criminal courts in Germany, where their understanding of human nature is seen as a benefit. AFAIK it's only two additional lay assesors and they don't get to decide the case for the presiding professional judge, they need to decide together.

Judges here are appointed, only the very best legal university graduates ever get a chance and the vetting is reported as relentless.

The notion of letting anyone not trained and examined for a decade or two deal with intellectual property cases seems utterly ridiculous from a (continental) European perspective. Personally I just don't see the added value of lay jurors.

They clearly made some sense when they were members of the community which was impacted by a legal case, criminal or civil. But in a matter over which they have neither knowledge nor participation I can't see how it helps the quality or the fairness of the decision in international disputes.

I guess that legal tradition divide it's one of the reasons the UK never wanted to fully integrate with the rest of Europe and tries to stick with its former colony.

To me a lot of the old English legal code is written in Fortran-60, while much of Europe's may have progressed to Modula-2.

Both are woefully behind in an age where the majority of all social transactions are digital.