( ESNUG 462 Item 6 ) -------------------------------------------- [02/15/07]
Subject: Questions for Atul Sharan, CEO of ClearShape
Question to Atul Sharan - CEO of Clear Shape
Your tools are point tools. To be useful, they need be integrated to P&R,
layout tools, timing tools, and extraction tools. So far Cadence claimed
that your InShape integrated with its Chip Optimizer, BUT the integration
is to go through DB file transfer then batch-run InShape then ASCII hot
spot result back. This is dumb. So what is the problem? Cadence or you
unwilling to co-operate?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
You and Cadence are temporary Brokeback buddies in DFM. Who pitches? Who
catches? How long before you see this deal ending?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
DFM point tools are not in TSMC's or any foundry's reference flow. There's
still lots of debate about DFM being who's cost. What's your exit plan?
Do you see TSMC's DFM design service with their own internal developed tool
as a competition?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
For Atul Sharan - There is a defined trend to using Reduced Design Rules
(RDRs) for physical IP libraries. When the majority of the market adopts
these technologies at 45nm and below, what will your company do since the
need for your type of tools will be eliminated?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
For Atul Sharan:
You raised second round of funding, you have not been acquired yet and
the third round is key for an EDA startup. So what is up with ClearShape?
Anything wrong with the value proposition, any skeleton in the closet?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
In a head-to-head runoff's with RET flows from suppliers for DFM testing,
surely an inexact compact model (as you are proposing) can never provide
the accuracy for identifying all the layouts with printability issues that
an exact form can provide. Your inexact forms are clearly preferable over
nothing as they can point out classes of obviously bad layout configs.
But it is inevitable they will miss some, this may be excused for such a
new technology. With increasing complexity at advanced nodes - double
patterning, etch models, complex OPC scripts and maybe even inverse
lithography more cases are going to be missed and with such an inexact
representation.
Wouldn't you agree customers will demand that no critical errors are missed
and the inexact flow you are proposing won't have the legs to support this?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Do these guys, especially Atul, see litho sim and other manufacturability
assessment tools ultimately replacing traditional, rule-based DRC checking,
as design rules transition from digital (pass/fail) to analog (contextual)?
If so, when? If not, why not?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Atul Sharan - how do you think restrictive design rules will effect the
fundamental value of your key technology?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Atul Sharan (ClearShape) - DFM is an important space but the market has
not caught up with the need for this technology yet. How will you survive
during this low period and come out as an independent company, or is that
even in your plans?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Atul Sharan: If Brion got bought for $270 M cash - how much are you worth?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
There are 20 or so DFM companies. 3 to 5 will be bought by somebody on
this panel, the rest will struggle or disappear altogether. What's going
to happen to you and why? Can you really go public with a DFM tool?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Last year you commented on who would survive the DFM deathwatch list...
Who are your current bets on surviving for this year? Who is going to die?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Why did ASML buy a DEATHWATCH company Brion for $270M (almost the same as
Magma's market cap) even though they were losing money? After all, Brion
competes on OPC verification with Synopsys and Mentor.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Question for Atul Sharan:
In a recent article, you were quoted as saying that small DFM companies
should be absorbed on the design side. Which company is the best fit in
terms of acquiring ClearShape and why?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It seems that 65 nm node is not showing the concrete need for litho
simulation like your InShape. How does a startup survive when large
companies like Mentor and Synopsys have litho sim and they can add
this type of technology part of their large deals?
Index
Next->Item
|
|
