I suspect it's going to boil down to whether any of the IP Nuvia had access to but Qualcomm did not made it into the cores. But it could also easily come down to some details of the wording of the contracts in terms of how that license is granted. Either way, this request for the destruction of laptops at the early stage is clearly a negotiation point: if the court grants it, which seems unlikely, it'll be a strong bargening chip for a negotiation a settlement in cash/royalties/etc, not the actual goal of ARM.

Agreed, I think on your last point ARM is also trying for a fast case/settlement as they are in a difficult position:

They don't want to have a long fight expensive fight with qualcom and make other arm companies uneasy about investing in the arm platform.

They also don't want to open the door to have companies buy their IP for "cheap" by buying smaller companies with special arm licences instead of directly negotiating with them.

> They also don't want to open the door to have companies buy their IP for "cheap" by buying smaller companies with special arm licences instead of directly negotiating with them.

Is it really ARMs IP or the IP developed by the smaller company. My understanding is ARM is like a blueprint, and you then make changes as needed.

It they (reasonably) charge for the blueprint based on what you say you are building.

The only reason small companies can get a license on easy terms is because of the narrow planned use.

That kinda depends on your licencing agreement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture_family#Licens...

You can either licence a IP Core block(Core, gpu,etc) to embedd in your device, our you can buy an architect licence and design your own cores as long as they comply with the arm architecture.

AFAIK the IP is actually buildable cores which arm get's by partnering with companies to get it right, e.g. there is not that much difference between them fully building them in house and selling them vs. letting partners build them(for the end user).