BRN Discussion Ongoing

[equanimous]

Hi Frederik,

Could you point me to the particular haystack you are talking about?

wow this seems to be a thing Dio

 

[Fact Finder]

I´m not in doubt that Akida is going many places

Have you figured out if the Qualcomm edge AI might be Akida? Because Qualcomm used to work on a neuromorphic chip and gave up on it.

I believe that eventually Qualcomm will embrace AKIDA IP but that is most certainly a belief not a yet provable Fact.

Nth Korea does not have to use nuclear weapons it has a huge standing army and it could do a poor man’s version of Puto’s Ukraine invasion just to disrupt supply chains. Throw in a few terrorist bombings of important commercial and strategic targets and that would be enough to attract US attention relying upon having their nuclear weapons to stop a full invasion by the Sth or the USA.

North Korea also has a very sophisticated state sponsored cyber attack capacity they could deploy against the South which presently they use to steal funds.

But who knows that’s why things are uncertain. Donald and Kim might go on a golfing retreat and solve everything by negotiation.

Regards
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA

 

[Diogenese]

Qualcomm has some new AI that has many similarities with what Akida can do, if it is their own AI, then it´s a threat to Akida, if it´s not, then we´re probably on the winning team being integrated into Qualcomms chips. They used to work on a neuromorphic chip, but decided to work on a software stack instead.

Do you have a link?

 

[Quercuskid]

Share price about to go up, an announcement about another change of address LoL!!!!

 

[FrederikSchack]

Enabling on-device learning at scale

How Qualcomm Technologies' latest research is making on-device learning feasible at scale.

www.qualcomm.com

Do you have a link?

Can´t find the presentation I originally read, but this should cover it.

 

[alwaysgreen]

Very interesting article regarding how arm wants to license their ai chips moving forward...

Arm reportedly changing licensing model to prohibit custom GPUs and TPUs, could impact Google Tensor

A lawsuit has revealed that Arm is apparently changing its licensing terms so that what makes the Pixel's Google Tensor unique...

9to5google.com

 

[Bravo]

The legal battle between Arm and Qualcomm is hotting up. The dispute is over Qualcom’s acquisition of a chip company called Nuvia. Although not publicly announced, it appears that Arm is apparently changing its licensing terms and business model.

Arm-Qualcomm legal battle suggests OEMs need Arm IP licenses, not chip firms​

By Matt Hamblen
Oct 28, 2022 02:21pm


EXTRACT ONLY

Arm and Qualcomm are ensnared in a complex legal battle in US district court over licensing of intellectual property with potentially far-reaching impact. A recent filing in the case suggests fundamental changes could be underway in how Arm works with chipmakers and OEM partners.

A document filed by Qualcomm in the lawsuit stipulates Arm is dramatically changing its business model so that OEM partners making servers and other computers must obtain licenses directly from Arm. Normally, Arm licenses its architectural designs and related IP to chipmakers such as Nvidia or Qualcomm, which in turn produce chips that are then sold to companies known as Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) that use those chips to make servers and other computers and devices.

In an updated Qualcomm counterclaim made public Oct. 26, Qualcomm argues that Arm is no longer going to license its central processing unit (CPU) designs after 2024 to Qualcomm and other chip companies under technology license agreements (TLAs). Instead, Qualcomm asserts, Arm will only license to a broad array of device makers. The 83-page counterclaim was filed, complete with redactions of specific license terms between Arm and Qualcomm, in case # 22-1146 before the US District Court in Delaware.

Arm has not yet formally responded to Qualcomm's latest counterclaim but told Fierce Electronics via email on Friday that Qualcomm’s complaint is “riddled with inaccuracies” that Arm will address in a formal legal response in coming weeks. (A fuller response from Arm can be found below.*)

Qualcomm's counterclaim was first noticed by Dylan Patel in SemiAnalysis. “Arm is allegedly telling OEMs that the only way to get Arm-based chips will be to accept Arm’s new licensing terms,” noted Patel. “Qualcomm claims that Arm is lying to Qualcomm’s OEM partners about Qualcomm’s licensing terms.”

Patel also said the counterclaim shows Arm is not planning to allow external GPUs, NPUs or ISPs in Arm-based SoCs. “It seems that Arm is effectively bundling its other IP with the CPU IP in a take-it-or-leave-it model,” Patel said. “That would mean Samsung’s licensing deal with AMD for GPU or Mediatek with Imagination GPU is not longer allowed after 2024.”

In its counterclaim filing, Qualcomm argues it is being strongarmed by Arm in a “baseless lawsuit.” Qualcomm argues Arm is making it clear to the marketplace that “it will act recklessly and opportunistically, threatening the development of new and innovative products as a negotiating tactic, not because it has valid license and trademark claims.”

Further, the counterclaim asserts Arm falsely told a longstanding OEM customer of Qualcomm that “unless they accept a new direct license from Arm on which they pay royalties on the sales of the OEM’s products, they will be unable to obtain Arm-compliant chips from 2025 forward. Arm has also threatened at least one OEM that if the OEM does not do so, Arm will go on to license the OEM’s large competitors instead…”

https://www.fierceelectronics.com/sensors/arm-qualcomm-legal-battle-suggests-oems-need-arm-ip-licenses-not-chip-firms

 

[Diogenese]

Yes I know my profile is marked as emerged but how is that relevant to the question I raised? Does that mean the frequent posters here get the automatic right to bully new posters? I don't mean FF here but I just saw one few mins ago. Do they have to be bullied just because they have a different view? Do we have to show our holding in BRN and educational qualifications before we can question something or is there a minimum waiting period or a number of posts we have to complete? Do you as an experienced engineer think that my original question was irrational?

My comments pertained to this comment:
"This is the first comment I was referring to: post #34,739

I was not aware there was some sort of a ranking system in TSEx similar to the army."

I have never advocated "bullying", but I don't disparage a robust rebuttal of manipulative downramping. You'd be surprised how many downrampers complain of bullying in relation to responses to their own disparaging contributions.

 

[Bravo]

I get a huge degree of comfort from the amount of engineering and scientific posts as well as the opinions of highly credentialed people sharing their valuable assessments of this company , now known as the beast . Thursdays after close 4C announcement cut me to the quick . Instead of selling immediately Friday ,I did some research that may be unique to everyone here . What I found picked me up and I can see why the Institutional investors racked in the cheap shares . Please Google Poly Centre 210 George Street Sydney . On the 10 floor there is a slither of a view of Circular Quay .Close by is Saint Pats Catholic Church ,Deloitte’s,and the Marriott Hotel.My opinion is that something positive is going on and this announcement prior to the 4C release should have been a steadier for those concerned who do their own research . I eagerly wait for next years annual general meeting to be hosted here .

I don't know about anyone else, but I googled the address and I couldn't deduce anything from it other than the building looks like it could really benefit from smart window-cleaning drones with Akida's inside them.

In short, I'm afraid you may have over-estimated our collective intelligence Frank. Could you please throw us a few more bread crumbs or, if you're feeling really generous, just lob over the whole loaf of bread. We won't tell anyone else, we promise!

 

[wilzy123]

You'd be surprised how many downrampers complain of bullying in relation to responses to their own disparaging contributions

Particularly on days when they most likely to (or suddenly) crawl out of the woodwork (like Friday).

 

[KKFoo]

I’m not sure if anyone has responded to this yet but thought I would given you have over 40 likes.

Im an accountant for what that’s worth before you read on.

You can’t use “creative accountancy” in a quarterly.

The quarterly report is a cash flow report. It’s cash movements only.

It does not show revenue at all.

It does, however, shows cash receipts for income that was accrued in prior and the current period, but, we don’t know how much of the cash receipted came from which periods.

We also don’t know how much revenue was accrued this quarter for which the cash was not receipted.

Excluding continuous disclosures obligations for a moment (simply because I’m not sure if this example would require an announcement), We could invoice a customer $5 million on the 30th of September and if the cash wasn’t received it would not show in the quarterly.

“Creative accountancy” isn’t easy when it comes to asx listed companies.

Their obligation from a compliance perspective is to prepare general purpose financial statements which have specific requirements from an accounting standards perspective. These standards determine how all sorts parameters within the financial statements are recognised, including but not limited to revenue, expenses, assets, liabilities and equity.

The entire purpose of having these standards is to ensure that third parties whom rely on the financial statements (banks, investors, shareholders) can in fact rely on those financial statements when making financial decisions.

I appreciate your want for improvement but suggesting the accountant move his pen in another direction is not the answer.

Cheers

Thanks Sera, this is the question that I was asking, "the 4 C does not capture all invoice issued in that quarter as revenue." That means the 118k revenue for this quarter is not really true.

 

[miaeffect]

Particularly on days when they most likely to (or suddenly) crawl out of the woodwork (like Friday).

View attachment 20695

Thank you Wilzy

I was just having a lunch and saw this

 

[Iseki]

The legal battle between Arm and Qualcomm is hotting up. The dispute is over Qualcom’s acquisition of a chip company called Nuvia. Although not publicly announced, it appears that Arm is apparently changing its licensing terms and business model.

Arm-Qualcomm legal battle suggests OEMs need Arm IP licenses, not chip firms​

By Matt Hamblen
Oct 28, 2022 02:21pm


EXTRACT ONLY

Arm and Qualcomm are ensnared in a complex legal battle in US district court over licensing of intellectual property with potentially far-reaching impact. A recent filing in the case suggests fundamental changes could be underway in how Arm works with chipmakers and OEM partners.

A document filed by Qualcomm in the lawsuit stipulates Arm is dramatically changing its business model so that OEM partners making servers and other computers must obtain licenses directly from Arm. Normally, Arm licenses its architectural designs and related IP to chipmakers such as Nvidia or Qualcomm, which in turn produce chips that are then sold to companies known as Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) that use those chips to make servers and other computers and devices.

In an updated Qualcomm counterclaim made public Oct. 26, Qualcomm argues that Arm is no longer going to license its central processing unit (CPU) designs after 2024 to Qualcomm and other chip companies under technology license agreements (TLAs). Instead, Qualcomm asserts, Arm will only license to a broad array of device makers. The 83-page counterclaim was filed, complete with redactions of specific license terms between Arm and Qualcomm, in case # 22-1146 before the US District Court in Delaware.

Arm has not yet formally responded to Qualcomm's latest counterclaim but told Fierce Electronics via email on Friday that Qualcomm’s complaint is “riddled with inaccuracies” that Arm will address in a formal legal response in coming weeks. (A fuller response from Arm can be found below.*)

Qualcomm's counterclaim was first noticed by Dylan Patel in SemiAnalysis. “Arm is allegedly telling OEMs that the only way to get Arm-based chips will be to accept Arm’s new licensing terms,” noted Patel. “Qualcomm claims that Arm is lying to Qualcomm’s OEM partners about Qualcomm’s licensing terms.”

Patel also said the counterclaim shows Arm is not planning to allow external GPUs, NPUs or ISPs in Arm-based SoCs. “It seems that Arm is effectively bundling its other IP with the CPU IP in a take-it-or-leave-it model,” Patel said. “That would mean Samsung’s licensing deal with AMD for GPU or Mediatek with Imagination GPU is not longer allowed after 2024.”

In its counterclaim filing, Qualcomm argues it is being strongarmed by Arm in a “baseless lawsuit.” Qualcomm argues Arm is making it clear to the marketplace that “it will act recklessly and opportunistically, threatening the development of new and innovative products as a negotiating tactic, not because it has valid license and trademark claims.”

Further, the counterclaim asserts Arm falsely told a longstanding OEM customer of Qualcomm that “unless they accept a new direct license from Arm on which they pay royalties on the sales of the OEM’s products, they will be unable to obtain Arm-compliant chips from 2025 forward. Arm has also threatened at least one OEM that if the OEM does not do so, Arm will go on to license the OEM’s large competitors instead…”

https://www.fierceelectronics.com/sensors/arm-qualcomm-legal-battle-suggests-oems-need-arm-ip-licenses-not-chip-firms

Brilliant. I think this is something one of our honchoes should take to Tony Dawe.
I mean whatever it takes to get up-take , right.
Give the manufacturers an option - license akida thru renesas or megaC or directly with BRN? Whatever works for anyone willing to sign up. This quarter only, special offer!

Also, let's open up in China. Okay. I mean fair enough. We can't afford to be choosy. What were we thinking? Let's do a deal now with someone in china and screw the shorters.

No dead cat bounce so bounce the ideas guys.

 

[Diogenese]

Particularly on days when they most likely to (or suddenly) crawl out of the woodwork (like Friday).

View attachment 20695

Must be @Bravo leaving bread crumbs around again.

 

[Diogenese]

Thank you Wilzy

I was just having a lunch and saw this

High protein.

 

[Salad1]

Yes I know my profile is marked as emerged but how is that relevant to the question I raised? Does that mean the frequent posters here get the automatic right to bully new posters? I don't mean FF here but I just saw one few mins ago. Do they have to be bullied just because they have a different view? Do we have to show our holding in BRN and educational qualifications before we can question something or is there a minimum waiting period or a number of posts we have to complete? Do you as an experienced engineer think that my original question was irrational

 

[DingoBorat]

Sorry if this has already been posted, as I haven't had the time to keep up with the posts lately..

Close to 12 million new borrowed shorts were taken out on Friday and were the main impetus for the push down, into current territory.

They tried extremely hard to capitalise on the 4C results and have succeeded in getting us here.

We won't know the real aftermath and "current" reported aggregate shorts, for a few days, as to how many of the outstanding 108 million shares (as of 25th October) were covered.

So it's important, that people realise, that the current "disappointment" in the share price, is largely manufactured.

This represents a huge buying opportunity, if you believe in the Company’s future.

Next ASX200 rebalance, will be in December however, so we will need to make some waves before then, lest we get kicked out

So the effects of that, have to be taken into consideration.

 

[GazDix]

I´m going to go a bit off topic for a moment, but I think the hard working Brainchippers would be interested in this, as it´s related to the foundry business.

To me it´s been obvious for a couple of years, China is going to try to invade Taiwan and I think we all know that this can have huge implications on chip manufacturing. There are many possible scenarios, but almost no matter the scenario, it´s going to have huge implications on the chip supply and not least how companies manages the risks.

For me, it´s been obvious that companies are going to move their chip production to other foundries and only Samsung can take the most advanced and most profitable process nodes. This is already Samsung´s most profitable segment and they are the only ones who are investing in expanding capacity, while others shrink capacity.

No matter the scenario, war or not, companies will move/diversify because of the risks that are increasing by the day.

I simply don´t understand why nobody seems to see this?? Am I failing in my logic somehow?

Yes, the logic fails because China is 99% unlikely to invade Taiwan for one simple reason that the media never mentions. China already promotes to its people that Taiwan is a province of Mainland China just like Hong Kong. So wouldn't it be strange to invade your own province? Like Australia invading Tasmania?

I guess they could create a narrative that they needed to use the military to go in, but invading is not in China's playbook. They are more likely to try and get politicians inside and turn the country around that way.
Our media and Western media in general is so full of shit, don't rely on it.

 

[Salad1]

Right on

 

[wilzy123]

Must be @Bravo leaving bread crumbs around again.

They must be really tasty... coz they keep emerging.