>"The question isn't just why Nvidia paid $13.1B more than market rate for technology they could build themselves (they have the PDK, volume, talent, infrastructure, and cash). The question is why they structured it this way.

Where the premium was spent:

Regulatory arbitrage:

Non-exclusive licensing avoids years of antitrust review. Structure the deal as IP licensing + talent acquisition, and regulators have no grounds to block it.

This alone is worth billions in time and certainty."

Isn't that fascinating!

Observation: For any given Deal (in business or in life in general) -- there may be one or more legal components -- to it...

But (equal-and-oppositely!) there also may NOT be one or more legal components to it!

What each deal has in some legal components -- it may lack in other legal components...

Conversely, what each deal does not have in some legal components -- it may have in other legal components...

Now, perhaps this may sound like a "self-evident truth", and as such, apparently may not be worthy of a deeper exploration, but it seems that there exists an:

Intersection of Set Theory and Legal Aspects -- applied to Deals

(AKA "Transactions", "Exchanges", "Barters", "Trades", "Exchanges Of Value", etc., etc.) in various jurisdictions (which can be thought about as how contracts, both legal and natural, arising from such exchanges are, or would be interpreted through its courts, through its regional statutes (aka "Laws") IF there are inter-party disputes which subsequently require a court for such interpretation...)

And that intersection -- could well be worthy of further study!

Phrased another way -- it (and this article!) are highly interesting from a legal perspective!

(And also a Set Theory / Set Theoretical one!)