[coob]

Wow this some pretty biased reporting. No attempt to assess whether or no Qualcomm have actually breached their contractual license with ARM

[_flux]

> Arm's argument is that the Nuvia license was canceled when it was taken over by Qualcomm.

How could the reporter possibly know one way or another, certainly it depends on the contents of that contract? Has anyone outside these three parties (Qualcomm, Arm, Nuvia) have seen the contract in question?

To me the reporting seemed quite unbiased.

[KingOfCoders]

On top of that, only a court can decide about a breach of contract in the end.

[rickdeckard]

Well, the terms of the contract are outlined in the respective lawsuit between ARM and Qualcomm: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22273195/arm-v-qualco...

[jojobas]

It will take dozens of lawyers (at least three opinions between any two of them) many months and millions of dollars to figure it out, and you want the journalists to make a call?

The article sums up rough positions of both parties well enough.

[luag]

It does, under 'It's all about licensing' section.

[robertlagrant]

What's the bias? In whose favour?

[InTheArena]

Qualcomm / Nuvia.

[jeffbee]

Why would you want some blogger to draw conclusions of law?

[josephcsible]

Even if they did, I'd still object to requiring useful products to be turned into e-waste.