Re: Privilege Levels Below User

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.