[HN Gopher] Qualcomm RISCs, Arm Pulls: The Legal Battle for the ...
___________________________________________________________________
Qualcomm RISCs, Arm Pulls: The Legal Battle for the Future of
Client Computing
Author : chmaynard
Score : 43 points
Date : 2024-11-16 03:06 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thechipletter.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thechipletter.substack.com)
| ksec wrote:
| I doubt HN is interested in reading this. Especially half of the
| post are materials against Qualcomm.
| bunnie wrote:
| I found it useful, so I'm glad I found it here.
| vkazanov wrote:
| This is a great article explaining the reasoning of both sides
| of the battle.
|
| And it is a very important turning point: riscv getting
| traction, desktop and mobile arms everywhere, x86 crisis in
| general.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > I doubt HN is interested in reading this. Especially half of
| the post are materials against Qualcomm.
|
| Considering Qualcomm's business practices of the past, I would
| rather consider the material against Qualcomm to be beloved by
| a significant fraction of the HN readers. :-)
| ksec wrote:
| You would expect that. Except 99% of comments on the subject
| has been practically speaking "ARM is dead". ARM shouldn't
| sue Qualcomm.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| Of course it seems that this hardball behaviour from ARM is
| likely a bad idea concerning its long-term business
| perspective, but I guess there is a significant group of
| people on HN which wouldn't be too sad about that because
| they hope this way RISC-V (which they love) becomes more
| widely used.
| snvzz wrote:
| This is not wrong.
|
| If it helps RISC-V, it really is for the greater good.
| kjs3 wrote:
| Speak for yourself. If 'HN' doesn't want to read it, that's
| what downvoting is for.
|
| What makes Qualcomm somehow sacrosanct and immune from analysis
| or critique?
| ksec wrote:
| >What makes Qualcomm somehow sacrosanct and immune from
| analysis or critique?
|
| None of what was written is new. And it is not Qualcomm is
| immune to analysis. It is the other way around. Any evidence
| that benefits ARM and harm Qualcomm in this case has been
| completely ignored on HN.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| > Any evidence that benefits ARM and harm Qualcomm in this
| case has been completely ignored on HN.
|
| This feels like beating around the bush.
|
| Can you give examples or citations of "evidence that
| benefits ARM and harm[s] Qualcomm," so that we on HN may
| avoid completely ignoring it? Otherwise it feels like we're
| doomed to tilt at windmills in your view, but we have no
| way of knowing how to disabuse ourselves of notions you
| only vaguely gesture at.
| hiatus wrote:
| Only half of this article is free, the other is paid.
| mrandish wrote:
| So the ARM v. Qualcomm litigation and the business moves
| preceding it seem to basically be hardball license contract
| negotiation via lawsuit. Qualcomm is by far ARM's largest
| customer and the ARM license is fundamental to Qualcomm's CPUs.
| Neither can really afford to live without the other but for both,
| significant business and strategic value is tied to getting more
| per core (ARM) or paying less per core (Qualcomm).
|
| I suspect that eventually they'll end up settling with each other
| once the court case gets to a point that narrows the probable
| range of the outcome (thus creating the approximate upper and
| lower boundaries to negotiate within).
| klelatti wrote:
| I think I would rather characterise it as hardball action by
| Qualcomm that got an expected response from Arm. The fact that
| Qualcomm told everyone except Arm in advance of the Nuvia deal
| is a tell.
|
| I think settlement is unlikely - we are two years into the
| lawsuit. Arm really doesn't want Oryon cores dominating - I
| think independent of price - and Qualcomm probably feels it has
| little to lose.
|
| (I'm the author of this post)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-16 23:01 UTC)