back to article Jury spares Qualcomm's AI PC ambitions, but Arm eyes a retrial

Qualcomm's push into the PC arena is safe, at least for the moment, after a jury found its mobile processor designs had not violated Arm Holdings' licenses as the British chip designer had claimed. The decision came after five days of deliberations, marking the end of a more than two-year legal battle between Arm and one of …

  1. Snowy Silver badge
    Coat

    Appeal

    There was always going to be an appeal regardless of who won.

    1. DS999 Silver badge

      Re: Appeal

      The court gives great deference to a jury's ruling though, so the basis for appeal would have to be something the judge decided wrongly, such as decisions on handling objections and submissions of exhibits. Really hard to believe that ARM could turn this around, they've been hoping they could use this as a way to squeeze more money out of Qualcomm and justify their insane stock price. No such luck.

      1. 3arn0wl

        Re: Appeal

        I thought Arm were seeking the destruction of the work (exerting their contol) rather than financial remuneration?

        Qualcomm's Arm licenses are up for renegotiation in a couple of years... I wonder what Arm will try to extort, and whether Qualcomm will pay it.

        1. doublelayer Silver badge

          Re: Appeal

          With ARM's contracts, at least as ARM described them, they had to demand destruction of the parts because there was no other remedy allowed. The next step, presumably, was for Qualcomm to go to ARM and ask if ARM would retract that demand for destruction if Qualcomm paid them some money, which they could negotiate. Qualcomm instead chose to challenge the accuracy of ARM's claim, and they apparently got a jury to decide that ARM was wrong after all. I'm pretty sure that ARM didn't want those destroyed, they just wanted every bit of leverage to convince Qualcomm to negotiate. They're probably quite angry now, so the question is whether they have opportunities to be vindictive and if they take them.

          1. HuBo Silver badge
            Windows

            Re: Appeal

            That jury verdict (on 2 of 3 counts) just makes ARM look like a pantaloonic buffoon who doesn't understand its very own business model imho -- and as such, this verdict makes no sense whatsoever!

            Say I have a license to make pedal bikes, and I manufacture some, and pay royalties to the IP-holder of pedal bikes (who also invented motorbikes) at the pedal bike rate, and then I buy a motorbike startup company, and start manufacturing motorbikes but insist on paying royalties for them at the pedal bike rate, then I'm a shameless liar, crook, lawbreaking criminal, delinquent malefactor, rogue villainous swindler, thieving bandit, and racketeering scoundrel, all in one. And yes, past Snapdragons were pedal bikes, tricycles, or kids' draisiennes even, when compared to the current Oryon X Elite chips ... no contest, and no comparison!

            I can't wait for Qualcomm to go off and start making its little plastic toy laptops using RISC-V chips. Leave ARM for the grown-ups who can properly handle powerful CPU archs!

            1. doublelayer Silver badge

              Re: Appeal

              Without access to the specifics, I also thought that ARM was more likely to have written this into their licenses. I don't like to bet, but if pressed, I would have guessed that ARM was more likely than Qualcomm to win here. That they haven't could mean that the jury simply got things very wrong, but it could also suggest that ARM did in fact mess up here. I have no reason to prove otherwise other than my instincts about how smart ARM's lawyers should be, and we do have to consider that these are either the same lawyers or close colleagues of the ones that persecuted someone who wrote a good textbook used to make things ARM needs on dubious trademark terms, so they aren't infallible. My instincts on their competence aren't strong enough for me to have confidence that the jury erred here. Maybe the trial on the remaining charge will give us more information.

              1. HuBo Silver badge
                Thumb Up

                Re: Appeal

                Good points! (I had forgotten about that textbook legal persecution nonsense by ARM that was really quite dumb!)

  2. GNU Enjoyer
    Facepalm

    >is still heavily dependent on the IP house's technology.

    Imaginary property does not exist; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

    What ARM provides is soft cores - depending on what proprietary contracts and NDAs a business signs, they can get from only the circuit topology form, the external wiring layout and an instruction set reference, to the verilog form and much more useful documentation, to integrate into a SoC.

    ARM also licenses many general idea patents, which I guess sometimes might assist against other rent seekers, who like to pull out a patent a known general idea like a shift register and demand rent money.

    1. Bonzo_red

      How can Stallman license his article if is imaginary? Does he believe in one set of rules for his creative works and another for those he wants to copy?

      1. GNU Enjoyer
        Angel

        Stallman licenses his article under copyright, which is actually a real law and is not imaginary.

        He believes in one set of acceptable copyright licenses of works of opinion and another set of acceptable copyright licenses for functional works.

        He is also of the opinion that noncommercial sharing of works should be permitted no matter the type, but he still does permit commercial distribution of all of his works, whether an opinion or functional.

        1. doublelayer Silver badge

          "He believes in one set of acceptable copyright licenses of works of opinion and another set of acceptable copyright licenses for functional works."

          Which is fine if you're discussing what you'd like copyright law to be, but completely meaningless when discussing what copyright law actually is. He already mixed those a bit too much for my liking in that essay, but you went the whole hog and started citing that source like it makes points about actual law which, in reality, are his opinions.

      2. Handy Plough

        That about sums up the FSF philosophy.

  3. FIA Silver badge

    Does he believe in one set of rules for his creative works and another for those he wants to copy?

    You mean like bits of Emacs?

    (I'm surprised I only learned about this recently considering how much Stallman bangs on about this stuff....)

  4. Bitsminer

    five days of deliberations...

    Imagine being on that jury. With all those lawyer's arguments ringing in your ears.

    Now imagine 6,000 years of Purgatory.

    Which would you prefer? I know I'd be hard pressed to decide.

  5. Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck

    It's going to be at least 5-10 years before the final appeal is heard on the issue.

    1. pimppetgaeghsr

      And we wonder why this industry is so stagnant.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like