• QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I don’t know why a blanket, terms not transferable upon sale, wouldn’t have covered it, but either that is too broad or didn’t exist in the original Nuvia contract.

      • kopasz7@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        It’s not about losing a license. ARM’s angle was that Nuvia’s license was for the server market. Qualcomm had their own license for the mobile chips. ARM’s issue was that the chip was developed under one license and sold/manufactured under another. (At least the first version)

      • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        I agree but that doesn’t really have anything to do with what’s in the Nuvia contract. I assume you mean it wouldn’t be the norm to have not transferrable in there.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Yeah, the terms would probably be legal, but they’d be so prohibitive that most companies wouldn’t sign them. Having to get a new license to key technology negotiated when you want to sell is a huge handicap.