421–430 of 480 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a little more nuance than that. Oracle was hoping SCOTUS would rule that API Structure, sequence and organization are copyrightable - the court sidestepped that question altogether by ruling that if APIs are copyrightable[1], the case fell under fair use. So the pre-existing case law holds (broadly, it's still fine to re-implement APIs - like s3 - for compatibility since SCOTUS chose not to weigh in on it in G…
> So the pre-existing case law holds (broadly, it's still fine to re-implement APIs - like s3 - for compatibility since SCOTUS chose not to weigh in on it in Google v. Oracle). There is no clear preexisting national case law on API copyrightability, and it is unclear how other, more general, case law would apply to APIs categorically (or even if it would apply a categorical copyrightable-or-not rule), so, no, its not…
Edit: none of the large companies (except Oracle) are foolish enough to pursue a rule that declares APIs as falling under copyright because they all do it. In Google v. Oracle, Microsoft files briefs support both sides after seemingly changing their mind. In lower courts, they submitted an amicus brief supporting Oracle, then when it got to SCOTUS, they filed one supporting Google, stating how disastrous it would be to the entire industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1 - thank you 2 - thank you again for sharing your eink hacking project!
Note that these are just a person's own opinions, obviously not shared by the architects behind RISC-V. There are multiple approaches here. There's this tendency for each designer to think their own way is the best.
That said, licensing an instruction set seems strange. With very different internal implementations, you'd expect instructions and instruction patterns in a licensed instruction set to have pretty different performance characteristics on different chips leading to a very difficult environment to program in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not Qualcomm's position in court. Do you have any legitimate source for that statement? Also, the foundation of Qualcomm's "Oryon" is clearly Nuvia's "Phoenix" core, which is based on Arm’s v8.7-A ISA. After Acquisition, Qualcomm formed a team to redesign Phoenix for use in consumer-products instead of servers, creating Oryon. That's the issue they have. Qualcomm was/is confident to resolve this IP issue of th…
In a way, the legalese details are less relevant to the industry perception of ARM as the move is seen as lighting the house on fire in attempt to win an argument. Qualcomm is the supplier of high-performance ARM-based SoCs in consumer segment, with the best performing core design. ARM is not doing damage to Qualcomm here but to ARMv8/9s long-term survival. I, for one, am greately unhappy about it because RISC-V is a…
As of now, ARM is largely in control of the evolution of ARM architecture, because even by those with an ALA (like Qualcomm), ARM's CPU-designs are the reference for the evolution in the respective industries. Straying too much from those designs turned out to not be economically feasible for most players since the move to 64bit, which is a beneficial development for ARM as they can drive a harmonized ecosystem in different industries.
Now ARM gave Nuvia a very permissive license to cooperate on the creation of ARM-based architecture, for a segment where ARM was very weak: server-architecture. With the licensing contract explicitly limiting Nuvia to use the resulting IP only for servers and only to Nuvia.
Now regardless of the legal dispute, Qualcomm now plans to use this IP to create a design roadmap parallel to that of ARM, with a market-position in consumer smartphone SoC's funding a potential hostile takeover of several other industries where ARM carefully works to establish and maintain a competitive landscape.
Qualcomm's plan is to achieve something similar to Apple, but with the plan to sell the resulting chipset.
So while ARM is building and maintaining an ecosystem of ARM as a vendor-agnostic architecture-option in several industries, Qualcomm is on a trajectory to build up a consolidated dominant position in all those industries (which may end up forcing ARM to actually follow Qualcomm in order to preserve the ecosystem, with Qualcomm having little vested interest to support an ecosystem outside of Qualcomm).
Qualcomm is known for having a particularly aggressive & hardball-style legal department to enforce its patents on core telecom IP. I believe the most likely outcome is they just settle the dispute here. Arm fighting hardball with hardball. Which would not really affect the ecosystem of phones using Qualcomm arm chips, it would just change the margins / market cap of Qualcomm. Yes, longterm Q might invest in their ow…
The Qualcomm online defenders are something else too. Qualcomm have been acting badly for years, including attempting to turn RISC-V into Arm64 but without the restrictions. You cannot trust people that behave like this, where everything they do is important and everything you do is worthless. The funny thing is Qualcomm do have some wildly impressive tech which is kept secret despite being so ubiquitous, but they ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Chilling effect" implies that we should want ARM to succeed. IMO we need to question the premises of the current IP ecosystem. Obviously, the principles of open-source are quite the opposite to how ARM licenses IP. (Afaik, ARM also licenses ready-to-go cores, which is very different from what Q is getting.) It's easy to see how RISC-V avoids the conflict of interest between owning the ISA and licensing specific impl…
> RISC-V We’d just get a bunch of proprietary cores which might not even be compatible with each other due to extensions. Companies like Qualcomm would have zero incentives to share their designs with anyone. ARM is not perfect but it at least guarantees some minimal equal playing field. > Afaik, ARM also licenses ready-to-go cores Which is the core of Qualcomm’s business. All their phone chips are based on Cortex. O…
Even if Qualcomm makes their own RISC-V chips that are somehow incompatible with everyone else's, they can't advertise that it's RISC-V due to the branding guidelines. They should know them because they are on the board as a founding top tier member.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>And if your emulator is too good, what stops ISVs from saying “you did it for us, we don’t have to care”? So once again they don’t have to do it at all and you have no native software. x86 emulation enables adoption. Adoption means having an user base. Having an user base means developers will consider making the platform a target. >Saying “Ha ha, just kidding, it’s RISC-V now” would be a disaster. Would it now? If…
> If anything, offering RISC-V support as well would further reinforce the idea that Windows is ISA-independent, and not tied to x86 anymore. Anymore? It’s been independent since the 90s. It’s only ISVs that have been an issue. And a rug pull is a fantastic way to scare all the ISVs far far away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Qualcomm doesn't have nearly as much to lose as ARM does and they know it. Qualcomm is almost certainly ARM's biggest customer. If ARM loses, Qualcomm doesn't have to pay out. If ARM wins, Qualcomm moves to RISC-V and ARM loses even harder in the long-term. The most likely outcome is that Qualcomm agrees to pay a slight bit more than they are currently paying, but nowhere near what ARM is demanding and in the meantim…
Qualcomm’s business strategy has become hold everyone at gun point then act surprised when everyone looks for alternative customers/partners/suppliers.
Wasn't/isn't Arm for sale? Is this just a ploy to strongarm Qualcomm into buying Arm?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By all means, point to some official statement showing that Google cannot market the Pixel phone as supporting the 4g/5g standards due to Google's use of Samsung modems.
You’re not hearing what I’m saying. I’m saying that Qualcomm historically has supported more advanced 4g and 5g standards that allow them to achieve faster modem rates. Whether that’s true today I’m not sure, but it was definitely true back when Intel was making modems. “Supporting 4g/5g” is meaningless. It matters what bands, what data rates, the sub carrier rates, how many channels you can bond together, etc etc. T…
You are saying Qualcomm doesn't have competition because Qualcomm make the best modem and others making worst product cant compete?