From the link

>The terms of the settlement are confidential

Anything you know that we don't? Usually licenses stay valid after a company is acquired.

Some news during that time said about this, this may be the original source:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/11/apple-htc-license-agreeme...

> In the event of a Change of Control of a party, this Agreement shall automatically terminate unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Parties, effective immediately prior to such Change of Control.

Sure, HTC had a couple of seminal 4G patents that forced Apple to cross-license back in 2012, but I'm not sure if such legal protection is of any use for Google today. Most of Apple's utility and design patents asserted against HTC and cross-licensed were found to be invalid or not infringed during Samsung trial. Further, unlike Samsung, Google is less likely to suffer from the jury bias that Samsung did, even if they end up in court for patent infringement. There is really nothing to fear. In any case, I don't think Google is doing this to acquire patents.

But not always. If someone were to acquire AMD wouldn’t they lose access to the Intel patents because of the way that deal was structured?

But wouldn't the potential AMD buyer have option to void deal for amd64 then? Serious question.

Depends on what the contract says. I'm guessing no because the Intel lawyers are not incompetent.

But neither are the AMD lawyers.

Except they got the license back in the distant past before anyone had any idea it would be so valuable.

and Apple is going to sit back and say "Oh Wow- Didn't see that coming"?. Don't bet on it- Apple will claim violation of their agreement.

If the letter of the agreement isn't violated then it isn't violated. Apple can't just retroactively rewrite it.

Of course depending on how it's written it is possible there could be some room for interpretation, which would likely end up being litigated, but I suspect these huge companies have teams of lawyers that are pretty careful about that kind of thing.

With the amount of money Apple has, they can, in practical terms.

As a negotiating tactic, if they really want and need to retroactively rewrite the contract they can say 'This is going to happen. You can agree, or we can spend money to destroy you legally and/or otherwise'. It depends on how badly they need to change the thing, but the amount of abstracted power they've got should they choose to wield it is enormous. At that point it becomes a game of personalities: does the CEO want to go to the mat on this one? Will the board go along? Bear in mind that shows of strength and ruthlessness will help the stock price, because those evaluating Apple for what it's worth are only interested in ruthlessness and power.

I think it's very silly to consider that laws mean anything anymore. In practice, only money matters. (in fact I don't approve of this, but that's my evaluation of how things stand, and how we got here)