QHT, Sbfm, Vk. re: Arm v QCOM..............................................................
QHT- thanks again for your efforts to keep us informed--- formatting that post / copying- pasting- must have taken a long time.
Vk /sbmf --- Good points / unanswered questions –
Vk
Wondering the role of PJ as ARM board member in all this. Does he have anything to do with this? Did he approve ARM's action against Q? Would be interesting to know.
Also have to wonder what the current QCOM mgmt/ employees, and other Jacobs family members think of this (if they currently hold QCOM stock).
And, if Paul was subject to NDA when he departed QCOM?
Sbfm
.+ Every ARM licensee will face similar issues, so where is the industry group and funding to rapidly develop RISC-V?
>>>>>>>>>> Q&As to Copilot >>> (Interestingly, Copilot referenced vkvraju5’s post in it’s answer )
is there an industry association that supports android system companies
Yes, there is an industry association called the GSMA that supports companies in the mobile ecosystem, including those that work with Android systems. The GSMA represents the interests of mobile operators worldwide and companies in the broader mobile ecosystem, including device manufacturers and software companies. They provide a platform for collaboration, innovation, and advocacy within the mobile industry. If you're interested in learning more or becoming a member, you can visit their website here.
+ There is no FRAND here (side question: why wasnt ARM IP part of the standards),
>>>Copilot Q&As
QCOM tech is based on ARM tech, so was it an oversight by the GSMA not to also require ARM to abide by FRAND
It's an interesting point. Qualcomm's technology does indeed build on ARM's architecture, but the GSMA's FRAND requirements typically apply to standard-essential patents (SEPs) within the wireless mobile industry. ARM's technology, while foundational, is not classified as SEPs and does not participate in the same standard-setting processes as companies like Qualcomm. Therefore, ARM is not subject to the same FRAND licensing requirements.
The GSMA focuses on ensuring fair competition and innovation within the mobile industry, but the specific licensing practices of individual companies like ARM may fall outside their direct purview. This distinction might explain why ARM was not required to abide by FRAND terms.
If you have more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
Should not ARM tech itself used in QCOM SOCs be considered "SEP- essential"
The distinction lies in how standard-essential patents (SEPs) are defined and used. SEPs are patents that are essential to a standard, meaning that it is impossible to comply with the standard without using the patented technology. Qualcomm's technology is often considered SEP because it is integral to wireless communication standards like 4G and 5G.
ARM's technology, while foundational and widely used, is not typically classified as SEP because it does not pertain to a specific industry standard in the same way. ARM licenses its architecture to various companies, including Qualcomm, which then build their own custom solutions on top of it2. This means that while ARM's technology is crucial, it is not tied to a specific standard that would require FRAND licensing.
+ Capitalism has the fix for a greedy licensor: an alternative IP emerges to either keep the greedy licensor in check or to bury the licensor. Now, that might take time and money, but that's our system.
Interestingly, over decades QCOM was fought tooth and nail by just about everyone (the mobile industry, companies themselves [partners/competitors], and governments/ institutions), yet to date no one has voiced concern over ARMs greedy practices (nor APPL for that matter).
When the details of this suit against QCOM are revealed will ARM become the focus?? |
