Qualcomm Opposes Nvidia's Acquisition of Arm as Deal Comes Under Increasing Scrutiny

[Spindel]

Summary

Qualcomm has registered an objection to Nvidia's acquisition of Arm with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the European Commission, the UK Competition and Markets Authority, and China's State Administration for Market Regulation

 

Quotes

Quote

Qualcomm believes that the acquisition risks Nvidia acting as a gatekeeper for Arm's technology, and could prevent other chipmakers from using it. Most importantly, Qualcomm is building a case to suggest that the only way Nvidia can make the acquisition profitable will be to gatekeep Arm's technology.

Quote

In addition to Qualcomm, AI chip start-up company Graphcore has raised concerns with the UK's Competition and Markets Authority, saying that the deal is anti-competitive, while in China, Huawei is similarly calling for the deal to be blocked.

 

My thoughts

Qualcomms worries aren't completely unreasonable. On the other hand I have a hard time seeing a company, not having interests in chip making/design, buying ARM as it stands. To speculate further the rumors that Apple was asked about acquiring ARM and turning down the proposal was most likely due to these kind of legal issues. 

The best thing would probably be a company like Philps or Matsushita Electronics buying ARM, but why really would they?

 

Sources

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/02/12/qualcomm-opposes-nvidia-acquisition-of-arm/

[Bombastinator]

I don’t know how imperiled the deal is right now, but the impression I get is “quite”.  

[pas008]

lol this is bullshit imho

 

is qualcomms acquisitions ips openly available for everyone else to use? or are they solely qualcomms? lol

should arm not be profitable?

oh arm cant raise fees now?

 

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

lol this is bullshit imho

 

is qualcomms acquisitions ips openly available for everyone else to use? or are they solely qualcomms? lol

should arm not be profitable?

oh arm cant raise fees now?

 

That doesn’t make any sense.  Qualcomm is but one licensee of ARM.  There are quite a few of them.  

[pas008]

7 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

That doesn’t make any sense.  Qualcomm is but one licensee of ARM.  There are quite a few of them.  

ok they have a license

big deal they can renew

 

"Qualcomm is building a case to suggest that the only way Nvidia can make the acquisition profitable will be to gatekeep Arm's technology."

isnt arm allowed to be profitable ?

isnt that what all acquisitions are pretty much lol?

 

does qualcomm honor their ip licensees from acquisitions?

 

[manikyath]

12 minutes ago, pas008 said:

should arm not be profitable?

oh arm cant raise fees now?

you're way misjudging the issue here. the issue is that ARM holding is the rights holder to technology that is produced by many businesses, this technology being the ARM processor design. if nvidia were to aquire ARM holding, they would essentially have the power to block companies (let's say Qualcomm as an example) from making products if they feel like they are a threat to nvidia's marketshare in the space.

and let's be honest, it's not a secret nvidia wants to be in the mobile makertplace, and aside from the nintendo switch have failed terribly so far.

 

in essence, it's like the whole fuss about nvidia attempting to steer reviewers' opinions by threatening to remove their access to review samples.. but in the case of ARM holding it would be removing their access to the IP required to produce products.

 

it's not that nvidia would be a worse company to own ARM holding than qualcomm, it's that any company that has a financial interest in making the IP licensing prohibitively expensive or otherwise limiting access to the licensing, is not a viable option.

ARM should be held by a company that has interest in selling as many licenses as possible, rather than has a potential interest in limiting the access to the IP.

 

there's an argument to be made that aquiring ARM holding is part of the free market, but there's an at least equally big argument to be made that ARM holding staying independant from a chip maker is important to keep a free market.

The reason this aquisition is so convoluted, is that controlling ARM holding essentially means controlling the market for mobile chipsets, and it would allow an american company to potentially burn down a brittish company to exert pressure on several asian competitors.

 

it's an argument of the meaning and limits of free market, it's an issue of international politics, and it's a financial issue.

[Bombastinator]

21 minutes ago, pas008 said:

ok they have a license

big deal they can renew

 

"Qualcomm is building a case to suggest that the only way Nvidia can make the acquisition profitable will be to gatekeep Arm's technology."

isnt arm allowed to be profitable ?

isnt that what all acquisitions are pretty much lol?

 

does qualcomm honor their ip licensees from acquisitions?

 

You seem to arguing an inalienable right to profit regardless of the fallout.  The problem is the fallout.  Nvidia can upend a bunch of other businesses by gatekeeping arm.  Bad fallout for those businesses and possibly users as well. There were several suitors for arm.  Nvidia simply offered the biggest wad of cash.  What people are saying is that they cannot be allowed to use control of arm as leverage to destroy their competitors by effectively forcing them to start from scratch with a different system (if Nvidia gate keeps arm pretty much every arm user is going to have to switch to risc5 or something) so they can limit how Nvidia can gatekeep arm, or they can disallow the sale. Not doing either though courts disaster for many other companies.

[pas008]

47 minutes ago, manikyath said:

you're way misjudging the issue here. the issue is that ARM holding is the rights holder to technology that is produced by many businesses, this technology being the ARM processor design. if nvidia were to aquire ARM holding, they would essentially have the power to block companies (let's say Qualcomm as an example) from making products if they feel like they are a threat to nvidia's marketshare in the space.

and let's be honest, it's not a secret nvidia wants to be in the mobile makertplace, and aside from the nintendo switch have failed terribly so far.

 

in essence, it's like the whole fuss about nvidia attempting to steer reviewers' opinions by threatening to remove their access to review samples.. but in the case of ARM holding it would be removing their access to the IP required to produce products.

 

it's not that nvidia would be a worse company to own ARM holding than qualcomm, it's that any company that has a financial interest in making the IP licensing prohibitively expensive or otherwise limiting access to the licensing, is not a viable option.

ARM should be held by a company that has interest in selling as many licenses as possible, rather than has a potential interest in limiting the access to the IP.

 

there's an argument to be made that aquiring ARM holding is part of the free market, but there's an at least equally big argument to be made that ARM holding staying independant from a chip maker is important to keep a free market.

The reason this aquisition is so convoluted, is that controlling ARM holding essentially means controlling the market for mobile chipsets, and it would allow an american company to potentially burn down a brittish company to exert pressure on several asian competitors.

 

it's an argument of the meaning and limits of free market, it's an issue of international politics, and it's a financial issue.

 

40 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

You seem to arguing an inalienable right to profit regardless of the fallout.  The problem is the fallout.  Nvidia can upend a bunch of other businesses by gatekeeping arm.  Bad fallout for those businesses and possibly users as well. There were several suitors for arm.  Nvidia simply offered the biggest wad of cash.  What people are saying is that they cannot be allowed to use control of arm as leverage to destroy their competitors by effectively forcing them to start from scratch with a different system (if Nvidia gate keeps arm pretty much every arm user is going to have to switch to risc5 or something) so they can limit how Nvidia can gatekeep arm, or they can disallow the sale. Not doing either though courts disaster for many other companies.

arm can gatekeep right now if they want to do so

 

but I see your point but most likely they will be grandfathered in like many other acquisitions until a so called date or renewal of the ip

at the same time these businesses have had the time to come up with a joint venture to secure arm as an open/cheap/etc license

also this is already accusing them of this which they have not done so by any means with this logic we should stop all acquisitions because of what they can be guilty of

 

 

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

 

arm can gatekeep right now if they want to do so

 

but I see your point but most likely they will be grandfathered in like many other acquisitions until a so called date or renewal of the ip

at the same time these businesses have had the time to come up with a joint venture to secure arm as an open/cheap/etc license

also this is already accusing them of this which they have not done so by any means with this logic we should stop all acquisitions because of what they can be guilty of

 

 

Yes of course it is.  Every instance corporations have been given, and they be been given a lot of the over the past couple decades, to not abuse a thing and force people to chase after them with limited success, has resulted in abuse.  The problem is if they do abuse it they also have to get caught and prosecuted, and that has become a less and less reliable way to do things.  That they should be given a chance to destroy a bunch of competitors but will promise not to take it is pure stupidity.  There’s an old joke about such acts and sexual things and how such promises are worthless.  

[pas008]

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Yes of course it is.  Every instance corporations have been given, and they be been given a lot of the over the past couple decades, to not abuse a thing and force people to chase after them with limited success, has resulted in abuse.  The problem is if they do abuse it they also have to get caught and prosecuted, and that has become a less and less reliable way to do things.  That they should be given a chance to destroy a bunch of competitors but will promise not to take it is pure stupidity.  There’s an old joke about such acts and sexual things and how such promises are worthless.  

guilty until proven innocent

nice sounds racist/prejudice  in a way

[manikyath]

Just now, pas008 said:

arm can gatekeep right now if they want to do so

but they have no reason to, and neither does their current parent company. That is the exact core of the argument: will the new owner have a reason to gatekeep the technology?

 

it's not saying any of the companies are inherently of bad intent, it's protecting a critically important IP from possibly ending up in the wrong hands.

 

in this sense, it would be very possible that nvidia will still manage the aquisition, given certain regulations. For example if nvidia had no intent of gatekeeping, they should have no problem with entering a contract where they wouldnt be allowed to gatekeep, and that is the resolution to this issue.

 

on that note.. you're making things overly simple.. expect the solution for this issue to be largely the same idea as you're offering.. but being several thousand pages of legal jargon covering just about every exception possible. there is no simple solution for a complex issue.

--

9 minutes ago, pas008 said:

also this is already accusing them of this which they have not done so by any means with this logic we should stop all acquisitions because of what they can be guilty of

trust me.. every high profile aquisition has got this amount of legal fluff around it. it's just because it's a techy topic that we hear about this specific one. i'd dare say that at this very moment there's at least two more aquisitions in this amount of legal fuss. (part of the reason is i know of another one, which i cant talk about, because NDA, and you'll find not a single article about it.)

[Bombastinator]

20 minutes ago, pas008 said:

guilty until proven innocent

nice sounds racist/prejudice  in a way

That’s the issue with regulation.  It’s for situations where even if the subject is caught the victims cannot be made while again so the violation cannot be allowed to happen in the first place, and experience has shown that the violation practically always happens. 
 

I find it amusing that you attempt to tie it to racism which has absolutely zero connection to this.  It’s not even an argument it’s just a poorly executed smear attempt.

[pas008]

33 minutes ago, manikyath said:

 

no if they already owned the ip it would be fine though but if bought must be restricted?

15 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

That’s the issue with regulation.  It’s for situations where even if the subject is caught the victims cannot be made while again so the violation cannot be allowed to happen in the first place, and experience has shown that the violation practically always happens. 
 

I find it amusing that you attempt to tie it to racism which has absolutely zero connection to this.  It’s not even an argument it’s just a poorly executed smear attempt.

no because you are already saying nvidia is going to do this

but on that note you are right it happens everywhere

big pharm/tech/grocery/etc and thats why grandfather/etc clauses could be added etc which i'm sure there already there

 

also

nfl license can be denied for stupidest of things but if my company cant exist without it does that make it the nfl's fault for me not surviving after them dropping my license?

oh wait nfl is already guilty right? just saying they arent guilty of anything yet speculate all you want but I cant stand by calling them guilty with no evidence

[Stormseeker9]

37 minutes ago, pas008 said:

guilty until proven innocent

nice sounds racist/prejudice  in a way

This guy.. how is racism suddenly part of this discussion we are having?

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, pas008 said:

no if they already owned the ip it would be fine though but if bought must be restricted?

no because you are already saying nvidia is going to do this

but on that note you are right it happens everywhere

big pharm/tech/grocery/etc and thats why grandfather/etc clauses could be added etc which i'm sure there already there

 

also

nfl license can be denied for stupidest of things but if my company cant exist without it does that make it the nfl's fault for me not surviving after them dropping my license?

oh wait nfl is already guilty right? just saying they arent guilty of anything yet speculate all you want but I cant stand by calling them guilty with no evidence

No, Qualcomm is saying that, history also says that it’s a near statistical certainty as well.  “Let’s just trust the corporation” has been repetitively tried in the past.  It basically always turns out badly.

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

No, Qualcomm is saying that, history also says that it’s a near statistical certainty as well.  “Let’s just trust the corporation” has been repetitively tried in the past.  It basically always turns out badly.

but this is a corp too saying this lol

qualcomm can gatekeep their own 5g ip right and their acquisitions ip right lol

[pas008]

15 minutes ago, Stormseeker9 said:

This guy.. how is racism suddenly part of this discussion we are having?

if you cant see the connection of how racism/prejudice ties into already making them guilty then I cant help you

[Bombastinator]

15 minutes ago, pas008 said:

if you cant see the connection of how racism/prejudice ties into already making them guilty then I cant help you

You couldn’t help them to begin with because there aren’t any.   All I’m seeing here is sophistry in an attempt to defend an indefensible point.  I’ll leave this to others to play with.

[manikyath]

3 hours ago, pas008 said:

no if they already owned the ip it would be fine though but if bought must be restricted?

look.. we're going in circles here... i'm just gonna start quoting myself.

5 hours ago, manikyath said:

ARM should be held by a company that has interest in selling as many licenses as possible, rather than has a potential interest in limiting the access to the IP.

the issue isnt buying ARM holding, who the buyer is, some imagined hatred for nvidia, or any other crap like that. the issue is that in this aquisition, nvidia could have a potential interest in ARM not selling licenses, to screw over their competitors. In which this would be an issue regarding monopoly positions etc.

 

or like i said before:

("they" in this being ARM holding, in the topic of gatekeeping access to ARM IP.)

4 hours ago, manikyath said:

but they have no reason to, and neither does their current parent company. That is the exact core of the argument: will the new owner have a reason to gatekeep the technology?

i should re-iterate how BAD it is for both the consumers, ARM as a technology, and all businesses deriving their technology off ARM IP, if this technology would be held by a single competitor in the space, wether that competitor is apple, nvidia, qualcomm, or even TSMC for that matter. The fact that ARM is in just about every phone on the market today, is because of it's licensing deals. the moment the technology gets locked down this is devestating for the entire mobile industry, for every consumer on the planet, and possibly millions of jobs. THATs what this is about, not some argument over if some company is allowed to buy another company, and at what sort of profits.

 

for this reason, it is critically important for all companies that use ARM-derived trechnology in their products that the IP is never owned by their direct competitor. owning ARM holding is essentialy a key to a monopoly position.

 

it's not arguing pro nvidia, not against nvidia, not even about wether or not a billion dollar multinational who sells their "gaming" cards by the truckload to crypto miners because they offered a nice deal will also potentially burn ARM to the ground, just to make sure they can hold the mobile market into a death grip...

it's about avoiding fire hazards before a potential fire starts, instead of making a fireplace out of wood, in the hopes we can put out the flames when it inevitably goes horribly wrong. not putting the dog with the chicken, so to say.

 

if you truly believe that this is all royal BS, the lawyers will come to this same conclusion. if there is bones to pick in the argument of nvidia potentially owning ARM.. the lawyers will make sure all bones are picked before the deal goes trough.

that's what they're there for, this is how multinationals work, let them play their game, so they can let you play yours.

[pas008]

21 minutes ago, manikyath said:

look.. we're going in circles here... i'm just gonna start quoting myself.

the issue isnt buying ARM holding, who the buyer is, some imagined hatred for nvidia, or any other crap like that. the issue is that in this aquisition, nvidia could have a potential interest in ARM not selling licenses, to screw over their competitors. In which this would be an issue regarding monopoly positions etc.

 

or like i said before:

("they" in this being ARM holding, in the topic of gatekeeping access to ARM IP.)

i should re-iterate how BAD it is for both the consumers, ARM as a technology, and all businesses deriving their technology off ARM IP, if this technology would be held by a single competitor in the space, wether that competitor is apple, nvidia, qualcomm, or even TSMC for that matter. The fact that ARM is in just about every phone on the market today, is because of it's licensing deals. the moment the technology gets locked down this is devestating for the entire mobile industry, for every consumer on the planet, and possibly millions of jobs. THATs what this is about, not some argument over if some company is allowed to buy another company, and at what sort of profits.

 

for this reason, it is critically important for all companies that use ARM-derived trechnology in their products that the IP is never owned by their direct competitor. owning ARM holding is essentialy a key to a monopoly position.

 

it's not arguing pro nvidia, not against nvidia, not even about wether or not a billion dollar multinational who sells their "gaming" cards by the truckload to crypto miners because they offered a nice deal will also potentially burn ARM to the ground, just to make sure they can hold the mobile market into a death grip...

it's about avoiding fire hazards before a potential fire starts, instead of making a fireplace out of wood, in the hopes we can put out the flames when it inevitably goes horribly wrong. not putting the dog with the chicken, so to say.

 

if you truly believe that this is all royal BS, the lawyers will come to this same conclusion. if there is bones to pick in the argument of nvidia potentially owning ARM.. the lawyers will make sure all bones are picked before the deal goes trough.

that's what they're there for, this is how multinationals work, let them play their game, so they can let you play yours.

ah arm cant be owned by a competitor but everything else in the world can be?

from drugs, 5g modems to software is ok

but arm cant because its everywhere?

you know if nvidia does restrict a competitor thats called what? which results in what?

but who are nvidias competitors in arm by the way? last i know nvidia isnt really a competitor here lol

 

and for arm they are all of a sudden a company dictated by other companies?

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, pas008 said:

ah arm cant be owned by a competitor but everything else in the world can be?

from drugs, 5g modems to software is ok

but arm cant because its everywhere?

you know if nvidia does restrict a competitor thats called what? which results in what?

but who are nvidias competitors in arm by the way? last i know nvidia isnt really a competitor here lol

 

and for arm they are all of a sudden a company dictated by other companies?

Let’s ignore can’t and go with should or shouldn’t which goes to will or won’t.  This is a version of what americans have had to deal with for years from the radical right.  It doesn’t matter to them that it’s a dumb idea.  They want what they want because they were told to want it.  Logic does not play a role. 

[Arika]

7 hours ago, Spindel said:

Qualcomm is building a case to suggest that the only way Nvidia can make the acquisition profitable will be to gatekeep Arm's technology.

 

"if we bought ARM we wouldn't be able to make it profitable, therefore NVidia can't possibly do it either"

 

that's a pretty shitty excuse Qualcomm.

 

Why wouldn't a company with a vested interest in the technology buy it to save it from disappearing into bankruptcy?

If all these companies were that concerned about NVidia buying ARM Ltd, then pool your money together and outbid them.

 

 

[Fasterthannothing]

Qualcomm is so full of it. They can take their bull crap opinion and shove it where the sun don't shine. They have had to pay a ton of fines for anti competitive practices. 

 

Qualcomm:

Quote

It is a multinational conglomerate that has owned patents on every major wireless communication standard 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/throwing-out-ftcs-suit-against-qualcomm-moves-antitrust-law-wrong-direction

[manikyath]

5 minutes ago, pas008 said:

ah arm cant be owned by a competitor but everything else in the world can be?

from drugs, 5g modems to software is ok

but arm cant because its everywhere?

you know if nvidia does restrict a competitor thats called what? which results in what?

but who are nvidias competitors in arm by the way? last i know nvidia isnt really a competitor here lol

 

and for arm they are all of a sudden a company dictated by other companies?

are you even reading?

 

it's a technology that's been owned by a neutral party, which if this goes trough may not be owned by a neutral party.

most drugs, afaik the entirety of 5G modems, and just about every bit of closed-source software are made by a certain company, and held by that company until the product is outdated or sold to another single entity.

 

it would be like if microsoft would suddenly decide to aquire all the rights to the linux kernel, with no requirement to keep it under the GPL license.

the fact they own Office365 is a given, it has been like that from the start, every company that based their product on Office365 has been aware of this from the start. But aquiring something that their competition relies on under the premise of it being 'neutral', to then possibly have to depend on a competitor's licensing.. is a terrible premise.

 

and to make sure i've addressed all your questions..

ah arm cant be owned by a competitor but everything else in the world can be?

 

from drugs, 5g modems to software is ok

but arm cant because its everywhere?

- been adressed above.

 

you know if nvidia does restrict a competitor thats called what? which results in what?

- depending on the exact details it's one of the following:

- - unfair competition

- - antitrust issue (which is what this whole fuss is around)

 

but who are nvidias competitors in arm by the way? last i know nvidia isnt really a competitor here lol

- nvidia has been trying to make their way into the ARM processor market, they have the Tegra chipset, the most 'famous' implementation is probably the Tegra X1 in the nintendo switch. They have been in the ARM processor space since 2008.

- their most notable competitors are: (added my hunch on the first thing that comes to mind why they would have an issue)

- - Qualcomm (directly compete with Tegra chipsets in phones and tablets)

- - Apple (have had beef with nvidia for ages)

- - Samsung (directly compete with Tegra chipsets in phones and tablets)

 

and for arm they are all of a sudden a company dictated by other companies?

- ARM holding was created in the 90s as a joint venture between several companies, to develop a microprocessor technology, and has been in joint ownership of multiple companies (varying as time goes on) until a japanese investment firm aquired them in 2016. This essentially means that ARM holding and its IP have never been in the hand of a single manufacturer.

ARM holding's aquisition by nvidia would be the largest aquisition to date, which obviously will cause a stir, and that stir is what we are now watching. this is a slow process, just let it happen, like i've said before.. if nvidia has their shit together, they will eventually come up with a deal the rest of the people at the table can live with, and make the jump.

 

and for all the arguments about qualcomm's behavior.. i agree they're not a hair better than nvidia.. but i'd be REALLY careful about giving nvidia the benefit of the doubt on pretty much anything... if this deal would fall trough, and Qualcomm were to be the next in line to try, i'd guarantee that the same fuss will start up again for a round two, because.. as i said...

1 hour ago, manikyath said:

the lawyers will make sure all bones are picked before the deal goes trough.

that's what they're there for, this is how multinationals work, let them play their game, so they can let you play yours.

 

[pas008]

6 hours ago, manikyath said:

are you even reading?

 

it's a technology that's been owned by a neutral party, which if this goes trough may not be owned by a neutral party.

most drugs, afaik the entirety of 5G modems, and just about every bit of closed-source software are made by a certain company, and held by that company until the product is outdated or sold to another single entity.

 

it would be like if microsoft would suddenly decide to aquire all the rights to the linux kernel, with no requirement to keep it under the GPL license.

the fact they own Office365 is a given, it has been like that from the start, every company that based their product on Office365 has been aware of this from the start. But aquiring something that their competition relies on under the premise of it being 'neutral', to then possibly have to depend on a competitor's licensing.. is a terrible premise.

 

and to make sure i've addressed all your questions..

ah arm cant be owned by a competitor but everything else in the world can be?

 

from drugs, 5g modems to software is ok

but arm cant because its everywhere?

- been adressed above.

 

you know if nvidia does restrict a competitor thats called what? which results in what?

- depending on the exact details it's one of the following:

- - unfair competition

- - antitrust issue (which is what this whole fuss is around)

 

but who are nvidias competitors in arm by the way? last i know nvidia isnt really a competitor here lol

- nvidia has been trying to make their way into the ARM processor market, they have the Tegra chipset, the most 'famous' implementation is probably the Tegra X1 in the nintendo switch. They have been in the ARM processor space since 2008.

- their most notable competitors are: (added my hunch on the first thing that comes to mind why they would have an issue)

- - Qualcomm (directly compete with Tegra chipsets in phones and tablets)

- - Apple (have had beef with nvidia for ages)

- - Samsung (directly compete with Tegra chipsets in phones and tablets)

 

and for arm they are all of a sudden a company dictated by other companies?

- ARM holding was created in the 90s as a joint venture between several companies, to develop a microprocessor technology, and has been in joint ownership of multiple companies (varying as time goes on) until a japanese investment firm aquired them in 2016. This essentially means that ARM holding and its IP have never been in the hand of a single manufacturer.

ARM holding's aquisition by nvidia would be the largest aquisition to date, which obviously will cause a stir, and that stir is what we are now watching. this is a slow process, just let it happen, like i've said before.. if nvidia has their shit together, they will eventually come up with a deal the rest of the people at the table can live with, and make the jump.

 

and for all the arguments about qualcomm's behavior.. i agree they're not a hair better than nvidia.. but i'd be REALLY careful about giving nvidia the benefit of the doubt on pretty much anything... if this deal would fall trough, and Qualcomm were to be the next in line to try, i'd guarantee that the same fuss will start up again for a round two, because.. as i said...

 

Lol tegra x1 doesn't compete with anything new its like 4 yrs old

Softbank is so neutral with its investments and subsidiaries lol

 

But here jump to conclusions they want to breach contracts, gatekeep, and get antitrust lawsuits everywhere

 

I'm sure part of softbanks acquisition and now nvidias I'm sure this is part of it

 

NVIDIA will continue Arm’s open-licensing model and customer neutrality and expand Arm’s IP licensing portfolio with NVIDIA technology

 

source. https://group.softbank/en/news/press/20200914