FTC sues to block Nvidia's $40B acquisition of Arm
The Federal Trade Commission has sued to block Nvidia's $40 billion acquisition of chip design company Arm, claiming that the deal could stifle innovation and harm competition in the chip market.
According to the FTC, the proposed deal would "give one of the larges chip companies control over the computing technology and designs that rival firms rely on to develop their own competing chips." The FTC's complaint alleges that, if the deal went through, the new firm would have both the means and incentive to stifle innovation.
"Tomorrow's technologies depend on preserving today's competitive, cutting-edge chip markets," said Holly Vedova, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. "This proposed deal would distort Arm's incentives in chip markets and allow the combined firm to unfairly undermine Nvidia's rivals. The FTC's lawsuit should send a strong signal that we will act aggressively to protect our critical infrastructure markets from illegal vertical mergers that have far-reaching and damaging effects on future innovations."
News of Nvidia's proposed acquisition of Arm broke in September 2020. In addition to the FTC, other chipmakers -- including Qualcomm -- have voiced opposition to the deal.
Arm, which is currently owned by Japanese firm Softbank, doesn't make or market its own chips. Instead, it licenses microprocessor designs and architectures to other companies. Apple Silicon chips like the M1 or those used in iPhones, for example, are based on Arm designs.
In addition to the possibility of Nvidia stifling innovation, the FTC's lawsuit also claims that the acquisition could harm competition by giving the chipmaker access to the sensitive information shared with Arm by Nvidia's rivals.
Along with the FTC, the U.K. government has also probed the acquisition, stating that it could threaten the country's national security. Regulators in the U.K. signaled in August that they believe the deal could be anticompetitive.
Read on AppleInsider
According to the FTC, the proposed deal would "give one of the larges chip companies control over the computing technology and designs that rival firms rely on to develop their own competing chips." The FTC's complaint alleges that, if the deal went through, the new firm would have both the means and incentive to stifle innovation.
"Tomorrow's technologies depend on preserving today's competitive, cutting-edge chip markets," said Holly Vedova, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. "This proposed deal would distort Arm's incentives in chip markets and allow the combined firm to unfairly undermine Nvidia's rivals. The FTC's lawsuit should send a strong signal that we will act aggressively to protect our critical infrastructure markets from illegal vertical mergers that have far-reaching and damaging effects on future innovations."
News of Nvidia's proposed acquisition of Arm broke in September 2020. In addition to the FTC, other chipmakers -- including Qualcomm -- have voiced opposition to the deal.
Arm, which is currently owned by Japanese firm Softbank, doesn't make or market its own chips. Instead, it licenses microprocessor designs and architectures to other companies. Apple Silicon chips like the M1 or those used in iPhones, for example, are based on Arm designs.
In addition to the possibility of Nvidia stifling innovation, the FTC's lawsuit also claims that the acquisition could harm competition by giving the chipmaker access to the sensitive information shared with Arm by Nvidia's rivals.
Along with the FTC, the U.K. government has also probed the acquisition, stating that it could threaten the country's national security. Regulators in the U.K. signaled in August that they believe the deal could be anticompetitive.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
I agree!
Its your iPhone, but you only have a license to use the software on it. I mean, this has only been mentioned countless times over the years when talking about computers/software and ownership.
sure, it’s “your” iPhone once you buy it. So go make your own OS and enjoy!
Meanwhile back in reality, the iPhone is just a lovely brick without the software and apple owns that software. Notice how all OS updates are free? That’s because you don’t own them, apple does. Part of the purchase price of an iPhone is a license to use that OS and its many updates.
That makes iPhone + iOS inseparable and the notion that the phone belongs to the owner but the OS does not, a bit of a problem if that fact isn't openly made known to the purchaser in clear and simple terms.
In the same way that carriers were obliged to unlock phones so that users could use them with other operators once contractual obligations had been met, a case could be made for users not to be tied, via software from manufacturers, to devices they own.
'Hiding' the requirements in ToS would definitely not be enough in the EU if someone were to make a complaint on the issue.
The carrier argument was a regulatory intervention because of the bit you mention "contractual obligations being met", which meant that carriers had no ongoing justification for the hardware to be locked.
There's no contract to license iOS though, it's perpetually not yours, but you are also perpetually able to remove it from your iPhone and replace it with other software, if you so choose. The fact that an alternative operating system for iPhones doesn't really exist (Android can run on it, but in a semi-functional way afaik) isn't Apple's problem.
I guess they could make it easier to install such a replacement OS, but if the alternative OS doesn't exist and the public appetite for it doesn't seem particularly keen, then what's the point.
There is no licence per se involved with music CD contents (at least not one that has to be accepted on use). Music CDs can, and are, played in public and on the radio but there are special licences for those cases (not with the CD itself but rather with the different companies managing the rights of the artists themselves.
In terms of other usage (depending on where you live and the different types of legislation) ripping or copying CDs is perfectly legal as long as you aren't doing it for personal financial gain. It's one of the reasons for example why you really can't buy hard disks, CD-R/RW or any storage media in Spain without paying a fee on top of the base price for precisely that usage. That fee can be reclaimed if you can prove that the disk was never used for copying content covered by certain digital rights.
However, the point wasn't so much a case of comparison or analogies but rather the notification to the user of the existence of clauses in ToS and if they can be considered valid notification methods.
We have already seen a ruling from the top EU courts on Spanish mortgage 'floor clauses' that made it crystal clear that including a clause (even with it still being a 'legal' clause in itself) in a mortgage contract was not enough (even if the clause was read out to the person signing the contract by public notary) and that the banks had to be able to demonstrate that the person signing the contract was aware of the implications and that the limitations had been spelt out in clear and simple terms for the consumer.
That decision cost the Spanish banks billions.
If someone were to bring the subject of Apple's OS restrictions up in the context of iPhone purchases and ownership, I think Apple could very likely find itself in a similar situation to the banks. 'Hiding' the relevant clauses in the ToS might not be deemed sufficient.
How to spot the software that could be spying on you
It can allow the user to view someone else's messages, location, photos, files, and even eavesdrop on conversations in the phone's vicinity.
...
"It's often linked to the most violent cases - because it is such a powerful tool of coercive control," she adds.
Research suggests that proliferation of stalkerware is a growing problem: A study by Norton Labs found that the number of devices indicating that they had stalkerware installed rose by 63% between September 2020 and May 2021."
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59390778
-------------------
This spyware evolved from parental control apps that Apple suppressed -- braving the out cry of angry parents no longer able to track their kids, where they went, who they interacted with and what they said.
If you like this stuff then go buy an Android.
Myself, I'll trade a little so called "freedom" for safety, security and privacy.
What are you complaining about? There is no one disagreeing with you. It’s YOUR phone, so do what the heck YOU want with it. Throw it into a wall if YOU want. WE don’t care, and Apple doesn’t care.
But don’t for a second think you can do whatever you want with Apple’s iOS. Because you for sure never bought that. If Apple says you are allowed to modify parts of it, by for ex installing certain apps inside of it, then that’s because they allow you to. The same thing goes for any other software from any other developer on YOUR smart phone or YOUR computer. When was the last time you complained about the rules Facebook set up regarding Facebook-installable apps? Or plugins for MS Office? Or skins in Fortnite?
iOS comes preinstalled on YOUR iPhone, but if you don’t like the way it works, and the way Apple lets you use it, then you are free to install any other OS of your choice on YOUR iPhone. Heck, YOU could even make one YOURself. Just don’t expect anybody to assist you in that. It’s YOUR choice, YOUR device freedom, and YOUR consequences.
Can you stop whining about nothing now, and get back on topic? You know, nVidia vs ARM etc.
And your point about CD and licenses is confused. If you concede that you need special licensing for doing certain things then you accept that there is another license for doing anything else. Your purchase of a music CD does not include a public or broadcast license, therefore it includes a more restricted license. Your purchase of an iOS device does not mean that you can alter, package and resell iOS as your own work and no reasonable person would expect that, so it is clearly licensed.