From the Court in Qualcomm V. ARM
Qualcomm requested an extension until today to file their first amended counter claims against ARM. As expected, the redacted documents did arrive, and I'll provide snippets and some form of biased analysis.
The document I am citing once again did not get uploaded to RECAP and thus is not on court listener, as such I've uploaded for your viewing here.
One of the exciting things is in this suit there is more discovery that can be done, after things we've learned in depo from the Arm v. QC it could provide more juicy details.
I am heavily biased, but it seems QC has a very good story that would resonate with jurors, see below.
The main idea Qualcomm is trying to push in this counter suit is that after Softbank acquired Arm the relationship started to sour as Son attempted to realize gains of his purchase. This first started during the failed sale of Nvidia and then their eventual IPO. In order to drive more revenue into the company they needed to move from a QTL-esque company to essentially a Qualcomm. [QHT bias] Arm has been interfering with Qualcomm's ability to enter new markets, ship leading edge technologies by:
1) Interfering with Nuvia's acquisition by claiming that Arm had to OK the transfer of technology, a transfer fee needed to be done and new ALA provisions needed to be signed.
2) Suing Qualcomm over Nuvia's termination provisions even though they were not a party to that. Enjoining Qualcomm's ALA in that suit.
3) Self remedying by attempting to terminate Qualcomm's ALA the day after trial (Arm V. QC)
4) Lying to Qualcomm customers, attempting to have them intervene on Arm's behalf and reading between the line, threatening them if they purchased and used Qualcomm custom CPUs developed by the Nuvia team.
5) Failing to deliver deliverables and support that was required under Qualcomm's ALA, specifically only for Qualcomm's custom CPU technology.
Qualcomm continues to tie these points together to show that Arm was not seeking to enforce anything but attempt to force Qualcomm to the negotiating table by not allowing them to ship x-elite and the server SoC
 
Qualcomm is entitled to some monetary damages I guess as outlined in the ALA which we never get to see:
From point and from Arm's self-remedy by attempting to terminate the ALA and leaking that to Bloomberg:
More information that Qualcomm customers are concerned and have explicitly asked for assurances (Probably Samsung & Auto customers) (See below I found more information on this ctrl-f for Ref24a)
ARM has attempted and still are attempting to raise revenues by doing a few things:
1) Attempting to raise TLA rates. They are doing this by just charging more and by packaging more "value add" instead of just a CPU core and the things required to run that CPU (Cache, AHBs, SMMUs). Their "value add" includes things like their Mali GPU, perhaps upcoming some NSP and potentially ISP.
2) Cutting Qualcomm, Mediatek et. al out from the market and licensing/manufacturing SoCs directly to the Samsungs, Xiaomi's, Microsofts.
3) Finding any way to terminate the Qualcomm ALA or force renegotiation, or keep Qualcomm on the TLA.
Due to their new owners requirement of driving new revenue they:
and have:
More random things that are interesting
In this post we were speculating that Qualcomm had an Arm V9 ALA turns out they do
Maybe Qualcomm will finally get some discovery regarding communication between Rene and Son showing him pulling the levers.
Qualcomm laying out the story for the FTC? Can you have a business model that makes the ISA easy to use everywhere then years later try and start stifling your business partners in a way they can no longer use the ISA which prevents them from making any revenue?
Oh yep here it is they're refusing to license v10 to Qualcomm, could the remedy for this lawsuit be monetary damages and a request that ARM be forced to license future versions to Qualcomm?
Ref24a Wow... Qualcomm has now financial damages due to the ALA termination leak
Qualcomm is requesting a declaratory judgment, which clarifies the facts or reality without any damage awarding.
Other counts:
COUNT III (Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
COUNT IV (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
COUNT V (Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
COUNT VI (Violations of California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.)
Does anyone know about violations of California law while arguing in a Delaware court?
Remedies Qualcomm is seeking:
 |
