Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting

QCOM 178.17

-0.3%

3:17 PM EDT

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

Recommended by:

JeffreyHF

Jim Mullens

To: QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN who wrote (191829)	1/4/2025 6:33:28 AM
From: sbfm	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) of 196325

I keep circling back to the question of where is the all-out effort to develop an open source alternative to ARM? It has been no secret that Son saw what he thought was hidden value in ARM and that he was going to try to unlock that value with a different model. Every ARM licensee will face similar issues, so where is the industry group and funding to rapidly develop RISC-V? (I suppose if RISC-V got off the ground, ARM will make a claim to it.) Time's atickin. I can't see a court granting ARM licensees perpetual licenses because ARM wants to change its business model. For one thing, does that force ARM to spend money to constantly advance its tech? How is a court equipped to monitor this? For how long? Who pays for it. There is no public policy here - this is a commercial issue and is between private parties. Once a license expires, how is it not the owner of the IP who decides how to sell it? There is no FRAND here (side question: why wasnt ARM IP part of the standards), the parties in the initial license agreement could have negotiated perpetual license extensions, and the license should be able to expire in its own terms (like the Apple/Q supply agreeement) and be renegotiated. From another angle, if a licensee could force a perpetual license wouldn't that make that initial "roll the dice, we don't known where the tech will go" license way more expensive so the perpetual license scenario is accounted for? This concept is a wooly booger not suited for the courts.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next