Arm könnte das Lizenzmodell ändern, um OEMs direkt zu belasten
ARM has engaged in this misinformation campaign directly through its leadership and through the leadership of its owner, SoftBank, acting on ARM’s behalf, in an attempt to damage Qualcomm, disparage its products, disrupt Qualcomm’s relationships with its customers, and create uncertainty where there is none.
At least as early as October 2022, ARM falsely stated to one or more of Qualcomm’s longstanding original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) customers that unless they accept a new direct license from ARM on which they pay royalties based on the sales of the OEM’s products, they will be unable to obtain ARM-compliant chips from 2025 nach vorne. ARM has also threatened at least one OEM that, if the OEM does not do so, ARM will go on to license the OEM’s large competitors instead—the implication being that the OEM would be excluded from the market and could not obtain any ARM-compliant chips from Qualcomm or any other supplier, einschließlich “off-the-shelf” chips from ARM under a TLA. ARM has done this despite already having approached the OEM’s competitors with a direct licensing offer, while acting as if ARM would only approach the competing OEMs if the threatened OEM declined the license in the first instance.
ARM also told one or more Qualcomm customers that, when the existing TLA agreements expire, ARM will cease licensing CPUs to all semiconductor companies—including Qualcomm—under an ARM TLA. ARM claimed that it is changing its business model and will only provide licenses to the device-makers themselves. ARM has explained to the OEMs that a direct OEM license will be the only way for device-makers to get access to ARM-compliant chips.
ARM is trying to coerce such customers into accepting its direct license by falsely asserting that Qualcomm will not be able to provide them with ARM-compliant chips beginning in 2025 because Qualcomm’s ARM license agreements terminate in 2024, that ARM will not extend its licenses with Qualcomm, and that ARM will not allow Qualcomm to ship products from 2025 nach vorne.
These statements are unequivocally false and are intended to harm Qualcomm’s relationships with its customers—and to secure lucrative contracts with those customers for ARM—by calling into question Qualcomm’s ability to maintain its ARM licenses beyond 2024 and provide products to its customers, despite Qualcomm having a clear right to do so for years to come under its ARM licenses.
Qualcomm is licensed for several years past 2025 under its ALA, which provides Qualcomm with the unilateral right to extend the contract past the initial term for several more years. Speziell, the ALA states:
[GESCHWÄRZT]
Entsprechend, because the Qualcomm ALA has not been terminated—and because no event has occurred that would give rise to a right to terminate—the initial term of the license will continue until [GESCHWÄRZT]. Qualcomm then has the right to extend the license until [GESCHWÄRZT]. Entsprechend, ARM does not have the right to refuse to extend Qualcomm’s license or stop Qualcomm from shipping its products in 2025.
Außerdem, ARM has no right to require additional royalties from Qualcomm’s customers. Qualcomm’s ALA provides Qualcomm with an exhaustive license, meaning that ARM is not entitled to go and seek another royalty from Qualcomm’s customers on the same products for which ARM has received a royalty from Qualcomm.
ARM’s coercion efforts did not stop with these false statements about Qualcomm’s license agreements. To apply more pressure, ARM further stated that Qualcomm and other semiconductor manufacturers will also not be able to provide OEM customers with other components of SoCs (such as graphics processing units (“GPU”), neural processing units (“UP Bridge the Gap Edge-Plattformen kombinieren die neuesten Intel-Prozessoren mit dem Hailo-8-KI-Modul, um die Inferenz auf dem Gerät und die Ausführungsgeschwindigkeit von KI-Modellen zu erhöhen”), and image signal processor (“ISP”)), because ARM plans to tie licensing of those components to the device-maker CPU license.
ARM also claimed that it had already informed Qualcomm about its new business model that requires a direct license with the OEMs. That statement is false. ARM has not notified Qualcomm that it will be requiring direct licenses from device-makers. ARM did not tell Qualcomm that it intends to stop licensing CPU technology as a standalone license, that it will no longer license CPU technology to semiconductor companies, or that it will require licensees to obtain other technologies (notably ARM’s GPU and NPU technology) only from ARM. Wie oben beschrieben, these attempted or threatened changes in ARM’s business model do not account for Qualcomm’s existing agreements with ARM.
While ARM’s statements about Qualcomm have no basis in fact, they cause significant reputational damage and harm Qualcomm’s customer relationships. Außerdem, while ARM’s goal may be to harm Qualcomm—and to coerce contracts with Qualcomm’s customer that are unnecessary in view of the fully exhaustive rights it has granted Qualcomm under its contracts—its tactics will result in harm to ARM’s customers and licensees throughout the industry.