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: QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN who wrote (191829)	1/4/2025 1:17:56 AM
From: vkvraju5	14 Recommendations Recommended By GR8FORM HD911 JeffreyHF Jim Mullens John Hayman and 9 more members Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196315

Thank You QHT for following up very closely on this whole saga. This is looking to be a strong case filed by Q against ARM (includes Softbank and Son). As you mentioned, it is quite possible that at some point, FTC or some other relevant regulatory body will get involved in this case directly or they may file a separate case on their own. Hoping ARM probably realises their mistake (rather blunder) by now and initiates to mend their relationship with Q soon. 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.

To: QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN who wrote (191829)	1/4/2025 6:17:35 AM
From: sbfm	2 Recommendations Recommended By JeffreyHF Lance Bredvold Respond to of 196315

"Does anyone know about violations of California law while arguing in a Delaware court?" This is a concept known as "choice of law." Under certain circumstances a court in one state can apply the law of another state to the case before it. From Google AI: "Choice of law is a set of rules that determines which jurisdiction's laws apply in a lawsuit. It's also known as a conflict of laws. Choice of law is often used in lawsuits where the plaintiff and defendant are from different states, and the courts must decide which jurisdiction's laws to apply. Choice of law can also refer to a contractual provision that selects a law to govern a contract. This is known as a choice-of-law clause or governing law clause. Choice-of-law clauses can help with settlement and reduce litigation costs by identifying the law that will apply to any disputes. They're often used by parties in different jurisdictions to ensure that no party has an advantage over the others. In the United States, New York is the most popular choice for choice-of-law clauses in contracts, followed by California or Delaware. However, how choice-of-law clauses are interpreted can vary by forum. " In the employee non-compete cases (which may be relevant) California has very strict laws voiding such clauses.

To: QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN who wrote (191829)	1/4/2025 6:33:28 AM
From: sbfm	2 Recommendations Recommended By JeffreyHF Jim Mullens Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 196315

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.