( ESNUG 267 Item 4 ) -------------------------------------------- [9/29/97]
Subject: ( ESNUG 264 #1 265 #2 266 #4) Synthesizable IP Is *Unprotected* IP
> Here is an idea for solving ASIC vendors "soft" IP being reused with other
> ASIC vendors as a target: As most IP is in ASCII form - EDA vendors need to
> support standard key based encryption for reading/writing ASCII files. The
> technology name that the tool is using must match that encrypted into the
> key. The use of the keys themselves would be licensed using standard unix
> license keys. The ASIC vendor would the license use of the IP for a given
> technology and timeframe using the combination of keys.
From: jon.connell@hl.siemens.de (Jon Connell)
John,
Putting aside the fact that encryption is worthless as ITAR currently
stands, a well timed core dump will leave you with the entire ASCII
data in unencrypted form. As Hank Walker said, this is simply a
licensing issue - and if you can't rely on a license agreement, you're
stuck because you definitely *cannot* rely on encryption.
- Jon Connell
Siemens Semiconductors
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
> On one hand, we want to distribute IP to our customers, so they
> can synthesize them to gates, adjust the synthesis to meet their
> own constraints, and simulate with back annotated information
> the entire ASIC. On the other hand, we want to guarantee that our
> customers cannot copy the IP and make their own, *AND* we do not want
> them to be able to simply re-synthesize to another process after we have
> completed the design stage with them, and then fab it somewhere else.
From: [ Name Withheld By Request ]
John,
You know my sordid history with Synopsys, Inc... keep me anonymous!
Working for a non-TI semiconductor manufacturer, I can feel this guy's pain.
On one hand, the customer is demanding more IP (processors, peripherals,
RAM, ROM, software drivers, BIOS, etc.) and more customer support.
Unfortunately, too many times, the customer is also unwilling to pay any
additional dollars for this IP. The customer views this IP almost like
fab space, as a cost of doing business. Additionally, the customer will
not even commit to a program if the IP is developed specifically for him.
Again, more of that cost of doing business. My company has had customers
where WE developed a complete solution, making marginal NRE dollars for
the effort, only to have the project cancelled with no production.
Protecting the IP from "walking away" is a tremendous problem. I am
generally reluctant to release synthesizable code to the customer. Hard
designs (those with optimized layouts) should not be released in a
synthesizable format. They may have hundreds of hours of physical design
effort in them that is lost of the customer resynthesizes the design.
If a customer walks with my IP to avoid royalties, there is really no
way to track it. I can't call up the other semi house (if I even know
who it is) and say, "Send me XYZ's Super Chip, I want to scope it to
see if my 15000 gate IP is hiding in their 2.5 million gates."
It is my general opinion that there is tremendous pressure to avoid
royalties and marginally higher production prices by re-spinning the design
with a low price fab that is not offering any IP. (Been there, done that.)
It's not just design IP that is the issue here either. No matter how
much is costs to develop, nor the advantages to the customer, the customer
will always want a device in a 500 high performance BGA package for the
same price of a 208 QFP.
From the inside, I view the IP issue as a huge problem for the silicon
industry. I personally don't see how semi houses can continue to offer
this limitless cornucopia of IP with no ROI. Many of your responses have
indicated that you have to make the production "attractive" enough to
keep the business. The only way to do that is to bomb the price. Some
customers expect us to run "negative" margins to show how important they
are. In those cases, we try to make it up in volume!
Finally, protecting the investment in IP is critical to ANY business. It
is not at all childish. Perhaps Mr. Lindsay should go ahead and post all
of his design files on the BA-A public ftp server. Semiconductor
manufacturers have the same financial responsibilities to their stockholders
as any other company. With *billions* of dollars in production facilities,
semi companies have a tremendous responsibility to protect that investment
alone. Contrary to the apparent popular belief, you really can't run a fab
on 10% profit margins.
Just my .35 microns.
- [ Name Withheld By Request ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
> Financial incentive could also be used to encite customer to stay with TI
> for the manufacturing. For example, royalties could be waved if the IP
> is manufactured with them. ... Encryption and licensing should not get in
> the way of getting value out of purchase. ...
>
> I'm sorry, but from the other side of the world all this IP protection
> stuff sounds really childish. In the end, if there are not enough swings
> and roundabouts for everyone then the least popular kids will just have
> to go and play somewhere else. (Although I suspect, given the way things
> are, they'd organise a protest rally and either get the council to build
> more roundabouts or get the park closed down so nobody could play).
>
> - David Linsley
> British Aerospace Australia
From: dchapman@goldmountain.com (Dave Chapman)
OK, folks, this is a re-run.
Anyone who remembers the IBM PC/XT remembers all the whines from the
software vendors about pirating and how copy protection was necessary
and blah-blah-blah, but the bottom line went something like this:
1. The customers all hate copy protection.
2. The customers will buy copy-protected software if-and-only-if
they cannot get the equivalent in real software.
3. Even if they buy your copy-protected stuff, they will hate you for it.
4. As soon as a competitor with a non copy-protected version
of whatever it is appears, they will desert you en masse.
5. If you subsequently, reluctantly remove copy protection, very
few of those who switched will switch back, because they hate you.
(See point #3, above).
6. The customers all hate copy protection.
If you are asking the question at this point "But, WHY do the customers
all hate copy protection?", then you are desperately in need of a clue.
If you are asking the question "But, do the customers REALLY hate copy
protection?", then you are hopelessly fucked up and need to find another
career.
There are a few ways for foundries to make money on IP:
1. Run it as a stand-alone business.
2. Give it away, as a form of advertising. Copyleft.
3. Offer it not copy-protected, with no royalties for those
who use your fab. (The aggrivation of having the bean counters
pay royalties will cause everyone to use your fab. It is
astounding how much muck, turmoil, and expense a company will
endure in order to not pay $5 in royalities.)
The business model which has been adopted by the ASIC software companies was
used by the mainstream software companies 12 years ago. It failed then.
It will fail now.
Want proof? Borland was selling both a copy-protected version and
a non-copy-protected version of Sidekick for a while. Despite having
a higher price, the non-copy-protected version was over 90% of sales.
As a side comment, I think that the current crop of IP vendors has a bad
case of megalomania. Where are the people supplying IP versions
of a 16550, or a Zilog SIO? What we see are PC-on-a-chip things, or
PCI bus interface modules, which are going to take up 80-90% of the gates
on my chip. Forget it. Unless I am making 500,000 of the thing,
it is cheaper and faster to use an external PCI chip and use the
ASIC strictly for glue logic.
What we need around here are IP modules with no copy protection crap,
incorporating between 1000 and 10,000 gates which do something I need
to have done, WHICH could NOT reasonably be done WITH AN EXTERNAL PACKAGE.
I can rant some more, upon request.
- Dave Chapman
Goldmountain
|
|
