License terms like this change all the time. The real question is why ARM isn't offering reasonable terms to allow this - or are/did they and it was rejected?

Probably a negotiating tactic. ARM is starting out by asking for something extreme (halting Elite X sales and destroying Nuvia's IP), when what they really want is for Qualcomm to renegotiate a new license for the IP with more money going to ARM.

I believe that Arm's argument is more in the other direction, that is that Qualcomm license does not cover IP developed by Nuvia.

It’s both, and more:

- Qualcomm’s license doesn’t provide for using third-party developments

- Nuvia’s license doesn’t allow using it on other platforms than servers

- Nuvia’s derived IP is not transferable without ARM agreement

What I was trying to say is that the last point

>- Nuvia’s derived IP is not transferable without ARM agreement

Binds Nuvia and Nuvia's license, not Qualcomm.

An analogy I can think of is how sometimes luxury brands give gifts or discounts to celebrities for marketing purposes with contract that forbid resales. (eg [0])

In this case the brand can only sue entities it had a specific contract with.

Back to the case at hand I believe that unless Qualcomm license includes a term along the lines of "You cannot buy Arm's IP unless Arm pre-approves it"[1] to hold Qualcomm culpable of this transfer.

To my understanding Arm used this proibition mainly to terminate Nuvia's license

[0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=john+cena+sells+car+lawsuit+ford&t...

[1] AFAIK this line might be in their license. I obviously do not have specific knowledge.