Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v4bc7p$1gh87$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Privilege Levels Below User Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 05:38:01 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 33 Message-ID: <v4bc7p$1gh87$1@dont-email.me> References: <jai66jd4ih4ejmek0abnl4gvg5td4obsqg@4ax.com> <Z9I8O.13$2JEf.11@fx14.iad> <5h%8O.4327$wDZ.776@fx48.iad> <1316e4baa439de908666e38c39cd8c79@www.novabbs.org> <ywE9O.33$46t.1@fx46.iad> <2024Jun10.172351@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <v48i8p$sc37$7@dont-email.me> <fQY9O.304090$1BTf.261375@fx08.iad> Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:38:01 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8d233eb4041a8359a7ec9ae99d50bca4"; logging-data="1590535"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/z0keW1CuIbGVlvs39omUVwH+74Mgi6T4=" User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:GhcOyKYWq8WJYkSq0jxSUHK1AU8= Bytes: 2476 Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> schrieb: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: >>On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:23:51 GMT, Anton Ertl wrote: >> >>> Given that ARM is able to charge an architecture licensing fee for the >>> instruction set alone ... >> >>I think that applies to newer versions, not the older ones. Given that ARM >>goes back to the 1980s, any patents from the earliest years would have >>expired by now. > > It has nothing to do with patents. > > The architecture license provides far more than the ability > to implement the arm instruction set. BTDT. The current spat between ARM and Qualcomm is quite interesting in that respect. It seems that ARM now demands that all PCs using Snapdragon-X-CPUs be destroyed. In return, Qualcomm accuses ARM of all sorts of bad things, including threatening to terminate Qualcomm's licenses if they insisted on enforcing their contractual rights. The spat also appears to be about ARM wants a bigger slice of the pie on smartphones, they demand a share of the sales price of the final product instead of the CPU. That actually sounds like something that the antitrust authorities might be interested in. If the cases ever go to trial, at least one ARM license agreement will be publically available. And, finally, if people will excuse the pun: This looks like StrongARM tactics.