this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
12 points (100.0% liked)

Hardware

238 readers
18 users here now

A community for news and discussion about the hardware side of technology.

Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.

If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @[email protected].

founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
Vacant
[email protected]
12
Arm vs Qualcomm: mutually assured destruction (www.techspot.com)
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/hardware
1 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Does Arm's latest move – canceling a Qualcomm license – imply they're willing to take the very risky step of pushing this lawsuit all the way to a jury trial? At the most basic level, this lawsuit is essentially a contract dispute: Qualcomm pays one rate, and Arm thinks Qualcomm should pay a different, higher rate. But this cancellation clearly implies that Arm could cause deeper problems for Qualcomm, should they choose to.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] onlinepersona 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If Qualcomm were intelligent, they'd have been investing in RISC-V even since the Nuvia incident. They had 3 years to get into it and will probably have another few years to switch.

It won't be without cost, but they'll be able to save on legal fees in the future as there won't be anybody suing them about RISC-V. Unless they do something truly dumb or have to seal with patent trolls.

Anti Commercial-AI license