( ESNUG 558 Item 10 ) --------------------------------------------- [03/29/16]
Subject: Unexpected stuff Cooley found snooping around the SNPS-ATOP lawsuit
SCOOP! -- My spies tell me that after two days of deliberation, at 11:00
today an 8-person jury voted in U.S. District Court of Northern California
in San Francisco (Judge Maxine Chesney presiding) to find Atoptech guilty
of infringing on SNPS' copyrighted Primetime commands.
They told me the jury awarded $30 million to Synopsys; $8 million for the
PrimeTime copyright violation itself, and $22 million for lost ICC/ICC2
sales that SNPS suffered. (The SNPS lawyers claimed that since SNPS owned
65% of the PnR market, SNPS should get 65% of AtopTech sales.)
Although it's bad, this does not mean the end of Atoptech, though.
From what I've heard, Atoptech won't have to pay a dime to SNPS until there
is a final judgement in all the cases against ATOP. Today was just the
PrimeTime copyright part. The two patents ('348 and '941) are still pending
until Feb 2017 (11 months from now.) After that, it'll be appeals which will
take an additional 12 to 18 months.
This adds up to 23 to 29 months from now. A lot can happen in that time!
- John Cooley of DeepChip.com
http://www.deepchip.com/items/0558-09.html
From: [ John Cooley of DeepChip.com ]
Next Day Addendum (03/11/16):
Roughly 11 hours after this news broke, Atoptech issused this press release
on Business Wire at 10:20 PM California time:
ATOPTECH PLANS TO CONTEST VERDICT
SANTA CLARA, Calif. -- ATopTech, a leader in next-generation physical
design solutions, says that it is obviously disappointed with the
result of the trial today (against Synopsys) and plans to pursue all
of its post-trial options to contest the verdict. The verdict itself
is not a final judgment at this stage, since other issues in the case,
including affirmative claims by ATopTech, remain to be decided.
ATopTech is pleased that the jury rejected Synopsys' breach of contract
claims and that it prevailed on one of the two copyrighted products
involved in the case. ATopTech strongly feels that the verdict results
from the application of incorrect legal standards, particularly since
it was proven that there was no loss of any sales for PrimeTime, the
only copyrighted product that remained in the case when it went to
the jury.
Fortunately, the verdict will not affect ATopTech's current version of
Aprisa, which was introduced in October of last year. The current
version of Aprisa does not contain the material that was alleged to
have been copyrighted in the case and that material will not be
included in any future Aprisa releases.
ATopTech will continue to support its customers and continue to provide
them with all of the superior features that Aprisa offers. Nothing in
the decision today will reduce ATopTech's continued commitment to and
support of its customers or its continued sale of the current and
future versions of Aprisa, which do not operate using the allegedly
copyrighted material involved in the case.
- Atoptech press release (03/11/16)
SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: Ok, I'll be 100% honest. My first gut reaction to
this news was that was mostly likely an Atoptech death knell and that they
were just using lawyer talk to put off the inevitable.
After all, tell me the name of any small EDA start-up which could pony up a
hefty court ordered $30 million in cash -- and still survive?
"Oh, well. It looks like ATOP is dead now..."
But then I stopped and tightly reread that ATOP press release.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
So if I reread it correctly, the jury said that ATOP infringed on PrimeTime
commands -- a static timing analysis tool -- yet what the Atoptech lawyers
are effectively saying with their incorrect legal standards claim is:
"Hey! ATOP never sold STA tools! So what does a ruling
on STA tools have to do with anyone's PnR tool sales??!
Yet, ATOP is getting punished for PnR tool sale losses??!!
That's messed up! This ain't over yet!!!"
OK, I deciphered that fairly easily.
So then I started making some phone calls.
And then going through 100's of pages of court documents.
And then doing some general snooping...
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
ABOUT THAT COURT DECISION: Here's what I found out.
- Atoptech does not have to pay SNPS $30 million until all of these
intertwined legal actions are resolved. And, no, Atoptech does not
have to keep $30 million is escrow either.
This court decision is one stop on a long legal journey. And Atoptech
runs business-as-usual until this all gets worked out.
The way the U.S. legal system works nobody knows until the very end
when the very last cards are played if ATOP will owe SNPS $$$, or if
SNPS will owe ATOP $$$, or if it's a tie (like how Magma was.)
- All 12 of the allegations that SNPS has made against ATOP are civil.
That is, it's 4 patent claims, a Primetime copyright claim, and that
old breach of contract stuff that Synopsys picked up when it bought
out the old Extreme-DA GoldTime STA tool -- which Aart was suing
at the time back in 2011.
None of this is criminal; it's all purely civil law -- Aart's lawyers
are not claiming that ATOP stole any SNPS source code. This brouhaha
is only about $$$, not crimes.
- The jury ruled against SNPS on the breach of contract claims SNPS
made against ATOP on the old Extreme-DA (SNPS) contract. The jury
also ruled against SNPS on its claim that ATOP had infringed the
copyrights in the old Extreme-DA GoldTime tool. These two parts of
the SNPS vs. ATOP lawsuit are done and were resolved in ATOP's favor.
- BTW what this jury gave is not a judgment, it's a verdict. It can't
be turned into anything until after the patent claims and suits are
resolved first -- which won't even start until Feb 2017 -- 11 months
from now PLUS then the appeals. So the 23 to 29 month timeframe is
a lowball estimate.
- There were some weirdnesses in this Primetime copyright case that will
most likely come up in appeal.
- SNPS claimed copyrights on 114 Primetime commands, 60 variables,
and 90+ attributes. Instead of carefully selecting of what was
unique to Primetime, Judge Chesney gave SNPS blanket copyright
over all of them. (Docket 688 Pg 12 Ln 7-10) That is, the
judge chose NOT to filter out the specific uncopyrightable parts
of the Primetime manual -- because it was just too complicated to
do (transcripts 2111 to 2122) -- and instead her jury instructions
in Docket 688 were:
... Atoptech infringes the name and associated syntax of
certain non-SDC commands, variables and attributes in
PrimeTime.
While this makes sense for a command like:
read_milkyway -triplet_type
because Milkyway is a SNPS proprietary database. But this ruling
gets scary because it says that Synopsys now owns the copyright
on common PnR commands (when paired with common options) like:
report_timing -from pin_X -to pin_Y
report_clock -skew -attributes clock_A
insert_buffer -libraries TSMC
list_libraies -only_used
read_sdf -quiet -path /lib/qualcomm/secret_chip.sdf
if they have any attributes or options with them. (My reaction:
"WTF?!! What tool command doesn't have options or attributes used
with it?!") If this holds, it'll whack the entire EDA industry.
- The final weirdness in this PrimeTime copyright jury trial is that
Aart's lawyers managed to convince the court that IC Compiler PnR
was a derivative PrimeTime STA. The SNPS expert testified:
"It's my opinion that IC Compiler is a tool based on PrimeTime."
"... my overall conclusion is that Aprisa had an impact on the
market of IC Compiler and of PrimeTime, and the derivative;
the works based on PrimeTime."
"... my conclusion was that the use of the PrimeTime command set
in Aprisa is not -- it does not weigh towards fair use."
- Dr. David Blaauw, Univ. of Michigan (court transcripts)
Holy crap! To a chip designer this was akin to someone testifying
that Microsoft Outlook email is a derivative of the Win'95 OS!
Did you catch that? Aart's lawyers somehow got it that ICC was
crafted from Primetime and that it's not "fair use" if any EDA
tool uses either PrimeTime input or output!!?? WTF?!
Which will probably be yet another basis for appeal.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
ATOP'S NUCLEAR COUNTERATTACK: Not being discussed publically anywhere is
that Atoptech has countered by filing an antitrust action against Synopsys.
In Docket 471 filed (11/12/2015):
"Synopsys' EULA agreement is an illegal agreement in restraint of
trade in that it attempts to leverage Synopsys' monopoly power in
the market for static timing analysis products in order to exclude
rivals who compete with Synopsys' IC Compiler product in the
place-and-route software market in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act."
Plus many other mentions of Sec 1 & Sec 2 of the Sherman Act, restraint of
trade, monopoly, anti-competitive, exercise of monopoly power, reduced
competition, Violation of the Clayton Act, predatory conduct, etc.
- Essentially, ATopTech says SNPS is using its monopoly position in
STA with PrimeTime to exclude competition in the PnR market. ATOP
alleges that SNPS does this by making it nearly impossible for a PnR
competitor such as ATopTech to correlate with PrimeTime.
- Naturally Aart's lawyers tried to get the antitrust claims thrown out
(and even succeeded in getting the Clayton Act stuff deleted); but the
judge ultimately ruled SNPS will still have to face the Sherman Act
ATOP counterclaims in court.
- The SNPS antitrust case will be heard on March 2017, 12 months from
now, along with the 2 remaining ATOP patent claims.
If ATOP wins on these antitrust claims, ATopTech would be legally entitled
to 3X damages -- which would wipe out the current verdict -- hence the
nickname of the "Nuclear Option".
- AntiTrust actions have been filed before in EDA. When Aart was suing
Magma back in 2004 for 3 patent violations, LAVA CEO Rajeev Madhaven
countered with antitrust counterclaims against Synopsys in 2005.
But that all ended once Aart bought out LAVA for $500 million in cash.
- The next related antitrust action in EDA was hinted at when Cadence
sued BDA for BDA bypassing the really slow OASIS ADE interface.
The case quickly played out with:
Does Cadence-Berkeley lawsuit mean some ADE users will be sued?
http://www.deepchip.com/items/0510-09.html
Berkeley's lawyer answers Cadence charges in U.S. District Court
http://www.deepchip.com/items/0523-01.html
So far public opinion is strongly anti-Cadence on CDNS vs. BDA
http://www.deepchip.com/items/0523-02.html
SCOOP -- Judge dismisses CDNS vs. BDA lawsuit "with prejudice"
http://www.deepchip.com/items/0535-07.html
Meaning things happened so fast that BDA never actually got around to
filing antitrust claims. They only hinted; it never happened. After
that, MENT acquired BDA for ~$50 million, Ravi Subramanian lives in
an airplane circling the globe, and BDA is no longer called into
any more lawsuits.
The scary part of all of this for Aart is if SNPS has a successful antitrust
judgement against it, it can seriously damage Synopsys, Inc. as a company
overall. Court actions can be a two-edged sword can cuts both way. And
nobody ever knows 100% what a jury will do. Again, it's a nuclear option.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
TWO OTHER FUN THINGS NOT REPORTED: And here's some other related news bits
that nobody else reported.
- Synopsys tried to compel Atoptech to produce its source code for
both Aprisa and Apogee in this case, but the U.S. Magistrate
Judge Donna Ryu denied that request in Docket 243 in March 2015.
- After 6 months into the lawsuit, SNPS had the judge kick out ATOP's
original defence attorneys, O'Melveny & Myers (OMM), because OMM had
defended Magma roughly 7 years earlier when Aart was suing Rajeev.
This was done even though there were different OMM lawyers on the new
ATOP case that had nothing to do with the old LAVA case. ("Talk about
a mindfuck! You're 6 months into fighting off a 12 claim legal case
from a $2.3B Synopsys -- and you have to #%&*-ing change lawyers!!!")
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Yea, this Primetime copyright jury verdict was a setback
for ATOP -- but there's some serious questions that will be brought up on
appeal. No, ATOP does not owe SNPS $30 million now. ATOP is still running
business-as-usual with all of its revenues. No, this isn't a criminal case;
it's only civil. It's not about code theft. It's only about money.
The remaining two patents won't be tried for 12 months from now. Appeals
will add another 12 to 18 months. And SNPS is facing Sherman Act antitrust
counterclaims that will either completely fail in court -- or they will do
some *exceptionally* bad things that will devastate Synopsys, Inc.
In a nutshell, *both* sides are still rolling the dice. It's still anyone's
game. And we won't know the final outcome until 2 to 3 years from now.
- John Cooley
DeepChip.com Holliston, MA
P.S. PERSONAL QUESTION: This took ~60 hours to carefully research. As
a DeepChip reader, did you feel this article was newsworthy? Did
it have info that EDA users and vendors needed to know? - John
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Related Articles
CA Jury finds for SNPS in Atoptech copyright infringement case
Aart's sue rivals policy backfires horribly on core SNPS patents
Aart's sue rivals policy backfires to tune of $36M in damages
Join
Index
Next->Item
|
|
