Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: engineer who wrote (191727)	12/23/2024 12:26:08 PM
From: RoseCampion	13 Recommendations Recommended By abcs AlfaNut aryl Dr. John engineer and 8 more members Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196742

Which brings up another set of thoughts.... After this debacle, ARM is likely to take pains to make its TLA and ALA license agreements even more draconian and one-sided, codifying their "all your base are belong to us" legal theory concerning licensee-developed IP being ARM's property and clearly prohibiting assignment to any acquiring company. For a chip startup, the relatively straightforward technical unknowns of choosing RISC-V could start to look quite manageable and reasonable compared to the minefield legal unknowns of dealing with ARM, which potentially could say it owns everything the startup worked to build, and prevent them from being acquired as well. Which means they will turn off some potential startups (and more importantly, their investors) from wanting to deal with ARM at all. And once just partially-successful company breaches the RISC-V barrier, it becomes that much easier for the next startup to do the same. A neater modern-day version of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs couldn't be told.