Highlights and Outcome of the Arm vs. Qualcomm Trial (with Prakash Sangam)

Prakash Sangam of Tantra Analyst joins Leonard Lee of neXt Curve to share his insights on the Arm vs. Qualcomm trial that took place in Delaware from December 16th to the 20th 2024. Prakash was in the courtroom for all five days and observed the in entire trial to its conclusion. Prakash provided play-by-play coverage of the trial is it occurred providing his insights. He was kind enough to share some key highlights and takes on the special reThink Podcast episode.

Prakash and Leonard parse through the highlights and key takeaways fro Arm vs. Qualcomm:

➡️ The first in and last out of court (1:20)
➡️ Background of the case: Arm vs. Qualcomm (2:50)
➡️ Highlights of the Arm vs. Qualcomm trial (6:40)
➡️ The implications of the trial outcome (12:02)
➡️ Qualcomm's right to use acquired Nuvia technology (19:47)
➡️ The loose ends and the prospects of resolution (25:19)

Hit both Leonard, and Prakash on LinkedIn and take part in their industry and tech insights. 

Check out Prakash and his research at Tantra Analyst at www.tantraanalyst.com.

Please subscribe to our podcast which will be featured on the neXt Curve YouTube Channel. Check out the audio version on BuzzSprout or find us on your favorite Podcast platform.  

Also, subscribe to the neXt Curve research portal at www.next-curve.com for the tech and industry insights that matter.

Chapters

• 1:20 The first in and last out of court
• 2:50 Background of the case: Arm vs. Qualcomm
• 6:40 Highlights of the Arm vs. Qualcomm trial
• 12:02 The implications of the trial outcome
• 19:47 Qualcomm's right to use acquired Nuvia technology
• 25:19 The loose ends and the prospects of resolution

Transcript

0:06

Next curve.

Leonard Lee: 0:10

Hi everyone. Welcome to this next curve. Rethink podcast episode, where we break down the latest tech and industry events and happenings into the insights that matter. And I'm Leonard Lee, executive analyst at next curve. And in this particular episode, I'm joined by my very good friend, Prakash Sangam of Tantra analysts, who is also like literally my neighbor. But Prakash flew out to Delaware last week to be in person in the courtroom at the Armed versus Qualcomm trial. So we have the pleasure of having Prakash here to give us his insights from his actual time in the courtroom. So this is really exciting. It's A a legal dispute that, We've been looking at for now a couple of years at least right? I mean this thing has been dragging on for quite some time and Apparently it has reached its conclusion, but Prakash welcome. Welcome.

Prakash Sangam: 1:21

Thank you. Thank you. So yeah, it is it's long. I think the new year Clothing happened in 2021. I think February or something like that And then in August, 2022 is when arm sued Cocom filed the case, right? Yeah, they filed the

Leonard Lee: 1:37

case.

Prakash Sangam: 1:37

So my attendance I was actually literally. The guy who was in the courtroom before even the law lawyer showed up on the first day And I was actually the last one not the last one, but I left when all the lawyers everybody left from the courtroom On the oh really? I was there the longest than anybody there.

Leonard Lee: 1:57

Yeah, so everybody has to give Prakash kudos for being there on the ground and bringing an expert's eye perspective on what happened what transpired and for those of you who don't know, I am Prakash. He's been, he's written about this quite extensively and he's also been cited in media for his expertise on this matter. And, there's something that Prakash, you and I have covered mutually over the course of the whole, It really is a drama, right? And in a lot of ways, it's an unfortunate thing, but hey for the most part, except for a few loose ends, it looks like there at least was a determination that everyone can now at least breathe a sigh of relief. A little, I don't know if you call it easy, but there's some water under the bridge and we can look forward. But let's talk about how all of this started. Because I think some of the folks in our audience probably don't know who Nuvia is. They don't know what the suit is about. Obviously, it's a little bit esoteric because it's about chips and intellectual property. And technology, right? That's really what the core of the dispute is around. So maybe we'll, let's start with that and giving our audience some grounding on what we're going to be talking about.

Prakash Sangam: 3:16

The whole deal started when Qualcomm acquired Nivea and who is Nivea? Nivea was a startup founded by Gerard Williams and a few folks. These are the folks. Who basically came out of Apple and when the, when at Apple, they basically designed the Apple Silicon. They started with this Silicon project, which is in all of Apple products now, right? So they came out and then started the Had a startup. Their initial target was to design chips for ARM based chips for servers. And then Qualcomm bought them and then and closed. And then and a lot, bunch of things happened, but ARM said Qualcomm needed their permission to acquire and they have to pay NUVIA's license, licensing fee, whatever licensing rate that they had for ELA architecture license agreement. But Qualcomm said they did not need the permission and they did not need NMEA's ALA to be assigned to them because Qualcomm already had a long established expensive ALA with ARM. So they said, we know we don't need your permission anyway, for good relationship, we'll ask you for permission, but we know we don't need a NMEA ALA assignment license assignment because our own ALA covers it, which Arm disagreed. They said you need permission and you also need to negotiate and pay ELA rates or negotiate, renegotiate. You cannot use Qualcomm's ELA. So because of that, we are, they tried to settle a lot of back and forth, there was an impasse and we ended up Monday of this week for this trial.

Leonard Lee: 4:58

Yeah, and it's been sort of an Odd stream of events. For a while it almost seemed like nothing was happening. This is happening over a course of two years. Yeah. And obviously there was some negotiation. One of the interesting things that I noted way back, this is like when the ball was starting to roll on all of this stuff, was how they

Prakash Sangam: 5:17

Yeah. You somewhere. Timelines. I don't think we mentioned timelines. So the acquisitions happened in 2021. And the arms sued Qualcomm in August of 2022. And around that time, it'd be the trial is fixed to be in 2024. So that is the timeline you're looking at. Yeah. Go ahead.

Leonard Lee: 5:38

Yeah, and so there was definitely some period where there was negotiation, but arm in principle had allowed the acquisition to happen. And, like, as you're saying, the big contention was really around the assignment or the transfer of the licensees. But then. Also just simply 1 of the big sticking points was like what you mentioned the royalty rate. And I think that really came out in the trial based on what I've heard, but you were there. So we'll maybe talk about that in detail. And the next part of our conversation, what were some of the highlights of the trial? And, what are the things that really stood out to you? Because, going into the trial, obviously there was only so much that anyone knew about the details of the agreements and, the nuances. Of the case, right? Other than what was disclosed and publicly available, non redacted documents. So what were some of those things that really stuck out to you as you went through now? I think it was 4 days, right? 4 days. Five days

Prakash Sangam: 6:55

Monday to Friday. Yeah. So, just to give a quick brief on what it was, the case was basically arm claiming after Qualcomm bought a new year, they said they had to take on a new year's ELA, which is the architectural license and pay new year's rates. Also they argued both the companies need arms permission or approval to do the the transfer or the buyout position. And then Qualcomm said they didn't think they needed. And they did not need new year ALA. They thought they had a comprehensive licensing, which is an ALA and also a TLA, which they've been using. So they said they did not need any approval and they did not need new year's ALA, their own ALA covers, that was the dispute. So, basically, the five days were broken down into. Opening statements, they're making their statement, each of the companies making their statements. First day because Army is the plaintiff, they had their testimonies, they had their CEO, Rene Hass, and their head of Yes. Testify and they had a few more. And of course had some, they had done depositions. They played a lot of video footage of the depositions on both sides. Yeah. Qualcomm had their CEO, Christiano Amon testify. They had, they also had their licensing, not licensing head, but the main person who is a legal SVP. legal affairs who actually negotiated the Qualcomm LA there. And then both sides had expert witnesses, support. So it started with lots of claims that are the questions that jury had to answer. Ultimately, based on how they and how the testimonies went and each others knew what their strength where and weaknesses where it the whole trial was reduced to three questions to the jury. And then the result was, as we all know, one was undecided, two were in Qualcomm's favor and at a very high level. In my view, ARM came up even towards the end as well, with a very simple solution, a simple story. There was a contract. We think the contract was broken and here are the points. We think why we think a new year has broken the contract. And they also said since, Qualcomm got the benefits of new year license, it also, although it is not a really party to the license, it is also party to the license that is the, one of the questions, and then that was. kind of two questions that were boiled down to towards the end. And then Qualcomm also counter claimed and then their claim was may basically asking jury to confirm that going forward, all of the Qualcomm products with technology from NVIDIA is included in which the newer technology included is. Controlled or it comes under the purview of Qualcomm's ALA, not NVIDIA's ALA. Right. So, uh, those were the arguments. As I said ARMS started off with a little bit of emotional approach but when their closing statement was simple, here is the contract, we think these both companies have broken the contract, breached the contract and here 1, 2, 3, 4 are the reasons why they have done it. Qualcomm was a little bit nuanced approach. I mean, they, of course, had a lot of, company as well as expert testimony. They also give reasons on why they acquired NVIDIA. Why do you think they, the approval is not needed from are, but anyway, in terms of to maintain good relations, they asked it, which was not given. And then and they also try to basically put a narrative saying it is are looking to earn more mainly because of the ownership change with SoftBank buying, they are, there are a lot of pressure to increase the revenue. So they had a lot of pressure. Mail and other things, internal communications from within arm and softbank included. So because of that they basically sued us. There is no merit to it and blah, blah, blah. They give their details, right? So they talked about how it might affect the industry and so on. So towards the end, in the beginning, it was fully fact based. There was an opening statement with very specific targeting specifics very specific. Kind of a assertive pitch. The closing statement was more emotional and then appealing to the jury that have, we paid a lot of money to this company. We got it because Armour was falling behind Apple in terms of performance. That is the reason we had to go by. And then we are on the clear and even Cristiano said, even if even if now arm comes back with the good core, we might use theirs, right? So that was kind of the pitch.

Leonard Lee: 11:49

So Prakash, that's really interesting. And thanks for that account of your time in Delaware in the courtroom during the arm versus Qualcomm trial. So, Hey, you mentioned these three questions, so maybe you can. Help our audience understand or tell them what those questions were, and then we can talk about maybe what the implications of those outcomes are now that the trial is over.

Prakash Sangam: 12:17

Yeah, sure, sure. So as you said, there are three questions. So and the actual legal language of these questions was quite long for simplification of our viewers. I know I'm paraphrasing them. The question one was. Whether Nuvia has breached a certain section of Nuvia a LA, the section of was 15.1 A, right? So first question was whether Nuvia has breached the section of Nuvia a LA, and the second question was whether Qualcomm has breached New Years. And the third was whether going forward, Qualcomm's products, which have newer technology should be under Qualcomm's ALA with R, right?

13:07

Okay.

Prakash Sangam: 13:08

First two are regarding a new year ALA. You might ask. Qualcomm was never a party to New Year's ELA. Why would they be breaching it? Right? During the course, what ARM claimed is that, they had, some legal backing to say that it's not just who signed, but who got the benefit of the contract can also be. Party to the contract, although they are not directly since Qualcomm got all the benefits of new year technology, they were they were also party to that contract. That is the reason they can also be sued for that breach. Right. Okay. But

Leonard Lee: 13:48

What would have been the implications though? so if they're making that assertion that Qualcomm was subject to the Nuvia ALA and reached out.

Prakash Sangam: 14:01

But I think the main point is Qualcomm was okay with it and court accepted that question, which means probably there are some legal basis for it, right? So these are the final questions that were given to the jury.

Leonard Lee: 14:13

Yeah, that's interesting.

Prakash Sangam: 14:15

Yeah. So then jury deliberated for almost one and a half days, around 10 hours or more. And then they came back with the decision that the first, which is NUVIA breaching NUVIA, its own ALA with ARM. They said undecided and the second they said Qualcomm breaching new year's ELA. They said they did not breach Qualcomm did not breach. So Qualcomm won on that question. And third question, whether Qualcomm's own ELA. We'll cover the products that have Qualcomm technology, sorry, New York technology in them, Qualcomm products with New York technology in them being covered by Qualcomm's own ALA. They said yes to it, which means Qualcomm won. So Qualcomm won two of the three questions. Okay.

Leonard Lee: 15:07

All right. Yeah. So, the bottom line is that Qualcomm is free and clear at the moment and probably in perpetuity, or at least as long as the current ALA continues to be in effect, which appears to be for quite some time and renewable.

Prakash Sangam: 15:24

There was some drama. I'll try to, quickly mention what that drama is because that has some implications based on what people are reading. So, one question was deadlocked and jury said, even if given more time, our master, why not give more time for them? Jury said, even if given more time, they don't think they can come to a conclusion there. And they could then are masked. We should hold off. Not a judge should not accept the other two and they try to give some precedents and explanation. Judge was not persuaded with that. She said, jury had given this has to be unanimous verdict. And Judy has given unanimous verdict on two after spending so much of time, she said she will accept it. So she accepted those two. And then undecided, undecided. So then, you might have seen a statement from RM that, whether they will retrial and other things. So since if all three were not a deadlock, then it is a mistrial, but since it is a mixed case in judge's view, Qualcomm has, she has accepted saying that it was unanimous verdict there. So he's accepted them. So then, there could be legal steps after this. And more importantly, she was always miffed that she, even before the actual trial, she tried to force both companies to settle their like for a court mandated meetings that they had to do, but they did not. And she said, she was miffed saying that she should have been settled. So she said, I don't want to see you guys in retrial quickly back soon. So she said she will order mediation between the two companies so that, they can try to settle. She even went to the extent of saying, I know. If you go to, uh,

17:13

uh,

Prakash Sangam: 17:14

you know, mediators, you can give a recommendation to you. So that's where it stopped. So what all this means is she basically is not really keen on getting to the retrial very quickly into the court again. And she'll definitely order the mediation between two. So then it all depends how both companies take this and move forward is the question.

Leonard Lee: 17:42

What does that mean though? What does that mean?

Prakash Sangam: 17:46

Yeah. So maybe one, a summary of this, in my view, Qualcomm has clearly won. It was two against zero in the verdict and the verdicts were very clear, unanimous. What happens next time? I think it depends on how both companies address this arm has said that they want to retrial. So the retrial Means, I think they have to go to mediation first before even asking the pre trial then. If it is a retrial, he is only to show good

Leonard Lee: 18:14

faith.

Prakash Sangam: 18:15

Others. Yeah.

Leonard Lee: 18:16

Yeah. Well, yeah. To show good faith. Right, because the hope is that it can get re resolved in arbitration versus,

Prakash Sangam: 18:23

correct, correct. Um,

Leonard Lee: 18:24

Being retrial, but that, that it is a retrial only for that first question. Right. Of whether or not Nuvia reached the contract.

Prakash Sangam: 18:36

Definitely for that one. And when arm basically was trying to convince her not to accept the other two, she said, yeah, you will have options to look at it again. I think it all depends. We only saw what is happening in the public, but after this, sometime in January, all the three parties the judge and the two parties. Come together and then they'll decide basically both companies can argue at that time, whether it's only one definitely be, will be looked at, has to be retrialed if they decide and mediation fails. The other two, whether it is retrial or it is a settled case, I think they will discuss that. But From judges view at that point of time, even looking at some of the precedences they presented at that time, obviously, she was just looking at it and didn't go in detail into it from her point of time of point of view, I think, the other two are valid.

Leonard Lee: 19:35

Okay. All right.

Prakash Sangam: 19:36

So it is definitely a win for Qualcomm. I think there is discussion and then a few options in terms of next steps, I would say to summarize it in one stance.

Leonard Lee: 19:47

Right. And then, so what's your feeling in terms of the concern and the perceived risk that Qualcomm would not be able to, or there is some risk associated with their continued use of the former Nuvia technology? In, the Orion and X Series CPU cores and processors.

Prakash Sangam: 20:14

Yeah, so I think, again, going back to three questions, right? The first two questions were related to NUMIA and ALA. And then one of the argument made is, Two is interlinked with one. So if one is undecided, then two, how to consider two, but three is very clear. Three is not related to any of the twin. It is a counter claim. Basically Qualcomm asking. Practically asking jury to to decide whether going forward Qualcomm's products with new year technology are controlled or, under the purview of their own ALA. And that has nothing to do with the other two. So I think that will definitely stand.

Leonard Lee: 20:58

Yeah, I think that was the interesting part of the trial, right? Is the argument about what is, what is I P versus confidential information, right? Yeah, and technology, those terms were used very. Much in a highly confused and convoluted way in all the filings. Actually it was one of the big risk of misconception and miscommunication. It was really hard to get a read on what the basis and foundation contractually was meant by confidential information,

Prakash Sangam: 21:38

technology, and

Leonard Lee: 21:39

IP.

Prakash Sangam: 21:40

A lot of time was spent on kind of two things I would say especially in expert testimony. How do you define arm technology? Right? Yeah. In qualcom's a LA, it is very clearly defined. Arm technology is basically ISA, yeah. Everything that other than ISA that the company does in terms of RTL designs, optimizations, and others, it is not our technology. Yeah, is written in the new year, a LA, it is not as clear. So in confidential information definition in parenthesis they're saying this is arm technology and. Derivatives of it, right? Yeah. That they're saying even ARM it has other bunch of other things and more critical one that is of interest is architecture compliant core is also confidential information and a lot of debate, Qualcomm's expert witness basically explain that, ISA is basically just a specification and that specification doesn't tell you how to make a core. It only had to make sure that the, whatever core you're doing runs that and it's compatible with it. It cannot be part of our technology because somebody else spends. Blood and money on it to develop it. It cannot be after a part of ARM technology. Then almost saying this is how it is defined. And they basically, that's where they differed on, yeah, so that's where, and the decision was specifically on that ARM technology.

Leonard Lee: 23:23

Yeah. Yeah. And that was the most interesting thing because there is a difference between Correct. IP and the application of Correct.

23:32

Yeah.

Leonard Lee: 23:33

IP and they're not the same thing. Now, a derivative of the IP would be EA or an extension of the issa. It wouldn't necessarily be. An entire chip design, right?

Prakash Sangam: 23:45

Yeah. Yeah. What I think basically in my view, I know you would, nobody knows what they discussed in the deliberations. But I think what the pitch that Qualcomm and especially Gerard Williams did is yes, if you look at it, okay. Actually architecture compliant. Core might be, he said that doesn't really mean anything because they work on the core. But so when do you say when do you say a core is architecture compliant, arm architecture compliant? So when Basically when you do the design, the core, you send the RTL to Yeah. Arm it. Certifies it. Yeah. Then it becomes arm compliant core, right? Yeah. So if, uh, so, but when Nuvia or when Qualcomm bought ea, Nuvia did not. We even applied their design for certification. So when Qualcomm bought NVIDIA, NVIDIA's design was not architecture compliant core, right? Because they never testified it, they were

Leonard Lee: 24:53

just delivered a product before they were

Prakash Sangam: 24:55

required. Correct. Correct. Well, they develop a core product, then you're certified. It was not even a product. It was some concept. So how can you say that was architecture compliant core that was there? I think it was a clever argument, which I think might have Convinced jury.

Leonard Lee: 25:14

Yeah. Well, it sounds like there are a couple of next steps. So very concisely, what do we anticipate next coming out of here? Other than maybe some continued discussions, arbitration sounds like the next thing.

Prakash Sangam: 25:28

That definitely she said she will order. I think third question is settled. The second question, because it is a little related to the first question that would be, discussed and theoretically speaking, right. Arm can ask for retrial of everything. Whether they'll be granted or not, that is judge's decision.

25:50

Yeah.

Prakash Sangam: 25:51

And even after

25:51

that,

Prakash Sangam: 25:54

even after that both parties have a option to appeal to that, which goes to, I think third circuit,

Leonard Lee: 26:03

but at this point, what's left the royalty rate is that what can be one and two sound like it's related to the contract and then that in the contract is the licensing and royalty rate. Right.

Prakash Sangam: 26:17

Yeah. So if the, I think then basically now both companies have different levels of leverage, I would say Qualcomm has much higher leverage than an arm. So they have to, if the mediation happens, if they negotiate and settle, Qualcomm is going to that settlement table with Much stronger leverage than if they settle, I think that is important, right? Yeah, if they don't want to settle, they'd still want to litigate, come back to trial then the option is, then the, between the three, they'll decide whether it will be, if there is a retrial, then definitely, it'll definitely, it'll be about the first question and the. Could be a chance. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. And I think a lot of these three people talking about looking at precedence, what is applicable, what is not, and so on. The other two could be a retrial. I don't know. But whoever, then if it is a retrial, it'll be totally, you're starting back to square one, there'll be new jury and Then if it is only one question, then how does that relate to second? It's very complicated at this point to analyze, right? So what I would say, Qualcomm is as an upper hand right now, when they go into negotiations, if the negotiations happen, that's well and good if they come back to retrial, I think what will be in the retrial is still very unclear.

Leonard Lee: 27:42

Yeah. The only thing I can really think of in question one would be some angle on the royalty rate. That's it. Water under the bridge, unless you're trying to undo the acquisition.

Prakash Sangam: 27:55

Correct. Correct. So I think where you, with the three, a third passing with unanimous jury this destruction of all of, uh,

Leonard Lee: 28:03

Yeah, their IP

Prakash Sangam: 28:05

asked by arm, right. The Qualcomm should distract everything that has arm IP in it. I think that has gone away because of the third question, which during yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Any Qualcomm product which has new, new IP is. Controlled by our, is under Qualcomm ALA. So basically Qualcomm was ready to pay its own ALA rate for all those new products, Xcelute and others, which kind of stays right now, right? Yeah. So they don't have to distract anything and they, they'll have to pay the that they have with our, before a new acquisition. So in my, it's another two strong wins for Qualcomm if nothing else, right?

Leonard Lee: 28:51

Yeah, I'm sure. Yeah. It'd be interesting to find out what the stinking point was on question one and

Prakash Sangam: 28:58

we won't know, but you

Leonard Lee: 29:01

know,

Prakash Sangam: 29:01

no, you also don't know. Whether it was like one person who was not because you need an anonymous agreement. It's not one person. There were eight jury. Was it one person, two person, three? It definitely was not four because yeah, it could be four. Right. So anybody, anything from just one to four people did not agree to question one. Right.

Leonard Lee: 29:24

Yeah. Yeah. Interesting.

Prakash Sangam: 29:26

Yeah.

Leonard Lee: 29:27

Okay. I guess we'll see what happens next, but it sounds like the conclusion was in your view, a resounding win for Qualcomm in this trial. So hey. Yeah.

Prakash Sangam: 29:40

Correct. We also, because zero out of two, and then there's a lot of resistance from the judge to do the retrial and three. If you look at the right, they don't have to destroy all the things and their rate stays. So I know it's like when, from all those points.

Leonard Lee: 29:59

Yeah. Okay. Hey, Prakash, thanks for sharing kudos to you for flying yourself all the way out to Delaware to win. I would like.

Prakash Sangam: 30:09

30 minutes before we are recording. Yeah. Yeah.

Leonard Lee: 30:12

And then thanks for that too. We want to get this perspective out there as quickly as possible, right? Because it is important. It's a lot at stake here. A lot was at stake

Prakash Sangam: 30:23

because it was like, not a clear cut it was not very easy to understand.

Leonard Lee: 30:28

Oh no, not even

Prakash Sangam: 30:29

really to understand what happened when you are outside. Okay. Oh, one, they did not decide to decide. What does this mean? You're, you can have your own opinion, but in, in the court, I think I got a better perspective. At least the judges stood at that point of time.

Leonard Lee: 30:46

So why don't you tell our audience how to get in touch with you as well as tap into the research and the work that you did covering the arm versus Qualcomm. Court case.

Prakash Sangam: 31:04

Absolutely. We could only cover so much in 30 minutes. There's a lot of other back and forth and a lot of other details that we could not talk about. So I actually wrote a blog with summary of each day with key points and what happened. For different flares of what happened on each day. So you can find that on On our website, www. tantraanalyst. com and under go for blog, look for blog, Tantra Notes blog, and I have a blog each for each of the day's proceedings. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. If you have any questions or anything, either on LinkedIn or Twitter, which is at my tech musings. Yeah.

Leonard Lee: 31:50

Yeah. And I, I highly encourage media to reach out to him because there I've seen some stuff that doesn't look too good. It could use a lot of precautions help. Yes, do reach out to him rather than just going off and writing. I agree with you going in. This stuff was so convoluted, complex.

32:11

Yeah,

Leonard Lee: 32:11

so Tarek, it's very hard for anybody to understand this stuff. So, yeah, you really need to have that expert perspective. And again Prakash, you've done all of us a favor having major presence in the room and observing. In real time, what was happening? So once again, thank you.

Prakash Sangam: 32:33

Thanks for all of your comments on my social media, my LinkedIn and other things. I appreciate that.

Leonard Lee: 32:40

Absolutely. Absolutely. My pleasure. And so, yes, everyone, thanks for joining us in this podcast episode, listening and viewing. Really appreciate it. Please subscribe to our podcast, which is featured on the next curve YouTube channel check out the audio version on buzzsprout or find us on your favorite podcast platform. Also subscribe to the next curve research portal at www. next curve. com for the tech and industry insights that matter. And also subscribe to the Tantor analyst newsletter and just go to the tech the Tantra analyst website, www. tantraanalyst. com and just click the subscribe button and Prakash will take care of you. Hey Prakash, happy holidays, have a wonderful time off and we'll see you probably in the new year.

Prakash Sangam: 33:33

Absolutely. So happy holidays to you and all of your viewers as well. Thank you. Thanks.