Arm's complaint seems relatively straightforward. The agreements, while we can't read them, are probably not ambiguous when it comes to assingment, since they're able refer to these assignment provisions, so I don't understand how Qualcomm imagines that it can do other than as Arm demands in this matter.
>On February 1, 2022, Arm sent a letter to Nuvia and Qualcomm terminating
the Nuvia licenses effective March 1, 2022. The letter terminated the licenses based on Nuvia’s material breach of the assignment provisions of the Nuvia licenses by entering into the acquisition of Nuvia without Arm’s consent.
If one can write as above, how can there be ambiguity? This anticompetitive conduct talk seems strange in a context such as things. There was a deal and one party broke the provisions of it.
It seems much more reasonable to negotiate a new deal so that the processors can be sold, and then there's this:
>On April 1, 2022, Qualcomm’s General Counsel sent Arm a letter enclosing a Nuvia representative’s termination certification. The certification acknowledged—without
objection—that the Nuvia licenses had been terminated. The certification recognized the obligations upon termination, and asserted that Nuvia was in compliance. Qualcomm and
Nuvia thereby conceded that termination of the Nuvia licenses was appropriate, and that the termination provisions had been triggered, are binding, and are enforceable.
Arm's complaint seems relatively straightforward. The agreements, while we can't read them, are probably not ambiguous when it comes to assingment, since they're able refer to these assignment provisions, so I don't understand how Qualcomm imagines that it can do other than as Arm demands in this matter.
>On February 1, 2022, Arm sent a letter to Nuvia and Qualcomm terminating the Nuvia licenses effective March 1, 2022. The letter terminated the licenses based on Nuvia’s material breach of the assignment provisions of the Nuvia licenses by entering into the acquisition of Nuvia without Arm’s consent.
If one can write as above, how can there be ambiguity? This anticompetitive conduct talk seems strange in a context such as things. There was a deal and one party broke the provisions of it.
It seems much more reasonable to negotiate a new deal so that the processors can be sold, and then there's this:
>On April 1, 2022, Qualcomm’s General Counsel sent Arm a letter enclosing a Nuvia representative’s termination certification. The certification acknowledged—without objection—that the Nuvia licenses had been terminated. The certification recognized the obligations upon termination, and asserted that Nuvia was in compliance. Qualcomm and Nuvia thereby conceded that termination of the Nuvia licenses was appropriate, and that the termination provisions had been triggered, are binding, and are enforceable.
I can't understand how this can be a court case.