(다른 재미있는 내용들도 많지만 글쓴이의 주관으로 몇가지를 뽑아보면)

 

1. 핵심 쟁점은?

이번 ARM vs 퀄컴의 갈등의 핵심은 누비아의 커스텀 IP에 대한 두 회사간의 견해 차이입니다.

 

퀄컴의 경우 누비아의 branch predictor, FPU, Out of Order engine, Micro-Op Decoder 등과 같은 커스텀 설계자산은 ARM ISA와 별개의 누비아만의 자산이고 이를 인수하여 퀄컴에 칩에 적용하는데 기존 퀄컴의 ALA 라이센스로 문제가 없다는 입장

 

ARM의 경우 누비아의 커스텀 설계가 ARM 기반의 설계이기때문에 ARM ISA와 연관이 없을 수 없기때문에 퀄컴이 누비아를 인수 시 누비아가 맺은 ALA 라이센스에 대해 퀄컴이 별개의 라이센스 조정이 추가로 했었어야하는데 그렇지 않았다는 입장(출처에 따르면 ARM은 자신있나봐요. 배심원 판결까지 요청했다고 합니다.)

 

원문)

The center of the dispute is whether IPs such as branch predictor, FPU, Out of Order engine, Micro-Op Decoder, etc. are wholly the property of Qualcomm/Nuvia, or if Arm has rights to these pieces of IP. Qualcomm claims that only the instruction set is owned by Arm, but Arm believes that these elements of the core, derivative work, are also subject to the agreement.

Arm denies that micro-architectural know-how and expertise required to build a CPU is not related to the ISA.

Qualcomm claims that the Nuvia IP transferred is not related to the ISA. This assertion is being rejected by Arm.

While we cannot read the actual architecture license due to its status as confidential information, Arm seems pretty certain of this provision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. 퀄컴 커스텀 설계(ALA) 차단 가능성?

1번의 ARM의 입장으로 퀄컴은 누비아의 커스텀 코어에 대한 ALA 조정을 진행하지 않았고 이는 ALA 계약 위반으로 ARM은 퀄컴으로부터 ALA를 취소시켜 커스텀 설계를 차단할 수도 있게됩니다.

 

원문)

(2) created at Qualcomm, by Qualcomm engineers and Qualcomm subsidiaries during the period while those entities were subsidiaries of Qualcomm, and

(3) licensed subject to the terms of that ALA.

None of this is true of the Phoenix core or other designs developed by Nuvia engineers at Nuvia based on the technology and license granted to Nuvia by Arm when Nuvia was a standalone company. Thus, Qualcomm is not only trying to develop an unlicensed product, but is also materially breaching its ALA with Arm.

The last statement is incredibly important. The Nuvia ALA was terminated following the acquisition by Qualcomm because Arm’s consent is required for a change of control. Arm is now arguing that Qualcomm has breached its own ALA, which would give Arm the right to cancel Qualcomm’s ALA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. ARM의 속내는?

ARM은 법정에서 누비아 커스텀 코어에 대한 추가적인 금액은 요구하지 않고 더 나아가 IP 파괴를 요구하고 있습니다.

하지만 이는 궁극적으로 퀄컴과의 최종 협상에서 유리한 입장을 위한 발언일 수도 있을것 같습니다.

ARM이 누비아로 부터 얻을 수 있는 이익도 수억 달러라고 표현한 부분도 또한 그러한 발언일 수 있습니다.

 

원문)

that it would go away if Qualcomm massively increased its royalty payments and made a separate one-time payment.

Arm admits clause (ii) of the fourth sentence of this paragraph. Arm admits that its commercial proposal also offered to “discuss and decide on the design transfer fee associated with such CPU design transfer” and that, “[w]ith respect to NUVIA’s design(s) using Arm implementation IP and software tools, Qualcomm will enter into a separate license for such implementation IP and software tools.”

It’s eye-opening to see that Arm says they expected “hundreds of millions of dollars” of earnings from Nuvia-based chips expanding the market for Arm.

Arm proposed that Qualcomm pay a design transfer fee and harmonize certain royalty rates with Nuvia’s rates in lieu of the hundreds of millions of dollars Arm anticipated earning from Nuvia’s products expanding the market for Arm-based chip

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. 퀄컴의 추가 진출 분야 노출?

ARM의 법적 발언에서 노출 된 내용인데

누비아 코어가 네트워크 장비에도 사용 될 수 있음을 언급하며, 퀄컴이 통신장비용 SOC를 개발하고 있음을 짐작 할 수 있습니다.

 

원문)

This bit about infrastructure networking is noteworthy.

Arm admits that Qualcomm publicly announced plans to integrate Nuvia CPU cores into Qualcomm’s flagship smartphones, next-generation laptops, and digital cockpits, as well as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, extended reality and infrastructure networking solutions.

We believe they are referring to the 5G base station SOC which is currently under development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. ARM 비지니스모델 변경의 진실은?

비지니스 모델 변경 내용은 하기글 참고하시고

https://meeco.kr/ITplus/36292379

일단은 ARM은 비지니스 모델 변경에 대해서는 그냥 부인한다 그 이상의 발언은 없었다고 합니다.

그리고 실제 OEM 업체들을 수소문해보면 변경된 비지니스 모델과 관련해서 ARM의 OEM업체와 직접적인 라이센스 정황은 없다고 합니다.

 

원문)

The other major topic to discuss is surrounding Qualcomm's claims that Arm is changing their business model

The counterclaim/defense from Arm directly addresses them but doesn’t say much beyond stating they deny the allegations. Here’s a snippet of what it looks like.

Discovery will reveal what proof (or lack thereof) Qualcomm has for its claims that the Arm business model is changing.

The OEMs we have spoken to haven’t heard a thing about Arm changing their business model to direct OEM licensing like Qualcomm claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.이런 갈등의 여파는?

결론적으로 퀄컴 / ARM 둘 다 손해를 볼 가능성이 있습니다.

OEM 업체들의 반응을 보면 퀄컴의 ARM 라이센스 차단 우려로 업체들은 칩공급 관점에서 Mediatek과 같은 Plan B를 생각하지 않을 수 없고

칩설계자들 입장에서는 이번에 노출된 ARM 비지니스 모델 변경 썰관련하여 RISC-V에 대한 가속 움직임이 나올 수 있습니다.

 

원문)

These OEMs are still concerned even though they haven’t heard anything about that potential change to licensing structure. They are also concerned about Qualcomm’s ability to continue to design and sell SOCs with Arm ISA CPU cores.

The uncertainty around the lawsuit means that OEMs must build contingency plans that include MediaTek and other SOC providers.

There is significant reputation loss with Qualcomm and their OEM partners, but there is also considerable reputation loss with Arm to their partners. This lawsuit is accelerating RISC-V efforts and roadmaps.