9 ms·

ARM committed the sin of suing a really big customer of theirs, so there is likely some exit-seeking all around the industry

klelatti 4y ago
I’m not sure what else Arm is supposed to do if it believes that the really big customer has broken their contract with them? I actually think this ought to be a positive for customers who are clearly abiding by the terms of their contracts.
- GoOnThenDoTell 4y ago
  It doesn’t matter which party is correct, its now added risk that ARM could be the bad actor
  - klelatti 4y ago
    Why if Arm is correct does that add a risk that it's the bad actor? Most firms will have legal departments can look at this case on its merits and decide whether or not Arm is acting in bad faith. If I'm another Arm customer I definitely don't want a competitor playing fast and loose with its Arm contract.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      > Why if Arm is correct does that add a risk that it's the bad actor? Because nobody wants to fight over the licensing of a product they're shackled to. If you could buy a RISC-V board with software support similar to a Raspberry Pi, ARM's goose would be cooked. Every enthusiast would ditch ARM in a heartbeat for a more open ISA, and ARM licensees would see it as an opportunity to finally wiggle free of ARM's insane license restrictions. All we need is the software support, which should be pretty forthcoming since most projects have already been optimized for RISC. ARM could unseat x86 because both ISAs were encumbered with licenses at the time. Now, ARM is competing with much less restrictive architectures, and all it would take is a FOSS RISC instruction set to ruin their value prop.
      - klelatti 4y ago
        > Because nobody wants to fight over the licensing of a product they're shackled to. So when a firm licenses a RISC-V core from SiFive they should be free do whatever they want with that core irrespective of the license terms?
        smoldesu 4y ago
        No, but they have the freedom to design their own core if SiFive threatens them in the way ARM does.
        klelatti 4y ago
        So you believe that firms should abide by contracts but that firms shouldn’t try to enforce the terms of those contracts. I find it odd how Qualcomm is portrayed as though they were innocently minding their own business when they suddenly got sued. They bought Nuvia knowing what was in the two sets of contracts. Also Qualcomm had and still has the ability to design their own Arm cores.
        smoldesu 4y ago
        I'm not talking about Qualcomm, really. I'm talking about companies like Apple, who really only have a cursory attachment to ARM as an ISA. Then there's the hundreds of smaller manufacturers who have zero attachment to ARM and would much rather build hardware on their own terms. Those are ARM's moneymakers, and those are the companies that frankly have the most to gain from using RISC-V. If Qualcomm is a relevant topic regarding ARM's success, then they've arguably already failed.
        klelatti 4y ago
        > would much rather build hardware on their own terms Most of these firms are licensing a core from a third party. There is no such thing as ‘on their own terms’.
- ip26 4y ago
  It’s not obvious who is in the right, and in my armchair opinion it looks like ARM has a slightly weaker argument. IANAL, but all of this makes ARM appear more litigious than egregiously wronged.

klelatti 4y ago

I’m not sure what else Arm is supposed to do if it believes that the really big customer has broken their contract with them? I actually think this ought to be a positive for customers who are clearly abiding by the terms of their contracts.

GoOnThenDoTell 4y ago
It doesn’t matter which party is correct, its now added risk that ARM could be the bad actor
- klelatti 4y ago
  Why if Arm is correct does that add a risk that it's the bad actor? Most firms will have legal departments can look at this case on its merits and decide whether or not Arm is acting in bad faith. If I'm another Arm customer I definitely don't want a competitor playing fast and loose with its Arm contract.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    > Why if Arm is correct does that add a risk that it's the bad actor? Because nobody wants to fight over the licensing of a product they're shackled to. If you could buy a RISC-V board with software support similar to a Raspberry Pi, ARM's goose would be cooked. Every enthusiast would ditch ARM in a heartbeat for a more open ISA, and ARM licensees would see it as an opportunity to finally wiggle free of ARM's insane license restrictions. All we need is the software support, which should be pretty forthcoming since most projects have already been optimized for RISC. ARM could unseat x86 because both ISAs were encumbered with licenses at the time. Now, ARM is competing with much less restrictive architectures, and all it would take is a FOSS RISC instruction set to ruin their value prop.
    - klelatti 4y ago
      > Because nobody wants to fight over the licensing of a product they're shackled to. So when a firm licenses a RISC-V core from SiFive they should be free do whatever they want with that core irrespective of the license terms?
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        No, but they have the freedom to design their own core if SiFive threatens them in the way ARM does.
        klelatti 4y ago
        So you believe that firms should abide by contracts but that firms shouldn’t try to enforce the terms of those contracts. I find it odd how Qualcomm is portrayed as though they were innocently minding their own business when they suddenly got sued. They bought Nuvia knowing what was in the two sets of contracts. Also Qualcomm had and still has the ability to design their own Arm cores.
        smoldesu 4y ago
        I'm not talking about Qualcomm, really. I'm talking about companies like Apple, who really only have a cursory attachment to ARM as an ISA. Then there's the hundreds of smaller manufacturers who have zero attachment to ARM and would much rather build hardware on their own terms. Those are ARM's moneymakers, and those are the companies that frankly have the most to gain from using RISC-V. If Qualcomm is a relevant topic regarding ARM's success, then they've arguably already failed.
        klelatti 4y ago
        > would much rather build hardware on their own terms Most of these firms are licensing a core from a third party. There is no such thing as ‘on their own terms’.
ip26 4y ago
It’s not obvious who is in the right, and in my armchair opinion it looks like ARM has a slightly weaker argument. IANAL, but all of this makes ARM appear more litigious than egregiously wronged.