GSM Arena Article – QCOM **brags** about achieving "complete victory" over Arm in chip licensing spat
“brags” ???
Copilot Q&A >>
Q- could there still be some bitterness by the Euros over QCOMs winning the "holy Wars" circa late 1999
A- Absolutely, —there’s a historical undercurrent here that still ripples through the industry. The “Holy Wars” of the late 1990s weren’t just technical debates—they were geopolitical and economic turf battles over who would define the future of mobile communications.
?? Flashpoint: CDMA vs. GSM
- GSM was the dominant standard in Europe, backed by the EU and ETSI, with deep political and industrial alignment.
- CDMA, pioneered by Qualcomm, was viewed by many European stakeholders as a proprietary, American challenger—less open, less collaborative, and threatening to the GSM ecosystem’s dominance.
?? What fueled the bitterness:
- Standard-setting power struggle: Qualcomm pushed hard for CDMA-based 3G (CDMA2000 and WCDMA), while Ericsson and others lobbied for GSM evolution. The ITU’s 1999 meetings were tense, with Qualcomm threatening to withhold IP unless CDMA was included.
- Licensing leverage: Qualcomm’s IP portfolio became essential to 3G deployment, forcing European OEMs and carriers to pay royalties—effectively conceding ground to a U.S. firm.
- Cultural friction: Qualcomm’s aggressive licensing and litigation posture clashed with Europe’s more consensus-driven telecom culture.
?? Lingering effects today:
- Subtle editorial tone: Headlines like “Qualcomm brags” may reflect residual skepticism or irritation, especially when Qualcomm wins legal battles that reinforce its IP dominance.
- Strategic divergence: Europe’s push for open RAN, ARM-based designs, and sovereign chip initiatives (e.g. Rapidus, STMicro) can be seen as efforts to reduce dependence on U.S. firms like Qualcomm.
- Regulatory posture: The EU’s antitrust scrutiny of Qualcomm (e.g. the 2018 fine over Apple exclusivity) may also reflect deeper discomfort with its market power.
So yes, while the industry has moved on technically, the psychological and strategic scars of the “Holy Wars” remain—especially when Qualcomm scores a “complete victory” over a UK-based firm like Arm. If you’re modeling geopolitical risk or sentiment drift in tech coverage, this is a rich vein to explore. Want to overlay this with EU industrial policy or chip sovereignty initiatives?
Article >>>>>
Qualcomm brags about achieving "complete victory" over Arm in chip licensing spat
Vlad 01 October 2025
Qualcomm brags about achieving "complete victory" over Arm in chip licensing spat
Qualcomm has achieved "complete victory" in its licensing dispute with Arm, which started back in 2022 when Arm filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm over a breach of contract related to Arm's acquisition of Nuvia and its use of Nuvia technology in the design of its custom Phoenix cores.
Like all court spats, this one took very long to conclude, but it now has in its entirety. A US District Court judge in the District of Delaware dismissed the lone remaining claim in Arm's lawsuit against Qualcomm and Nuvia, by ruling in favor of Nuvia.
This follows Qualcomm's victory in December 2024, when a jury decided unanimously that Qualcomm did not breach the Nuvia licensing agreement with Arm and that the CPU core design obtained in the Nuvia acquisition was properly licensed by being covered by Qualcomm's own license from Arm. Today's ruling upholds that jury verdict and rejects Arm's request for a new trial too.
So it's finally, definitely, conclusively over now. Qualcomm says this result reinforces its ability "to drive innovation across the semiconductor industry and address the world's most important technological challenges".
Funnily though, Qualcomm's separate lawsuit against Arm for breach of contract, "improper interference with customer relationships", and a "pattern of conduct seeking to hinder innovation and better position Arm's own products over its long-standing partners'" is still ongoing |
