Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/huawei-reportedly-says-it-has-developed-domestic-chip-design-tools-despite-u-s-sanctions.17676/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021370
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Huawei reportedly says it has developed domestic chip design tools despite U.S. sanctions

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
  • Eric Xu, rotating chairman at Huawei, said the company along with other domestic firms, jointly created electronic chip design tools required to make semiconductors at 14 nanometers and above.

  • If Xu’s claims are true, Huawei would have taken a step to reducing its reliance on U.S. technology in semiconductors.
  • In 2020, Washington, through sanctions, cut off Huawei from American chipmaking tools, which crippled the Chinese technology giant’s smartphone business.
An image of a woman holding a cell phone in front of a Huawei logo displayed on a computer screen.

Artur Widak | Nurphoto | Getty Images

Huawei reportedly said it has developed its own chip design tools, a move aimed at side-stepping U.S. sanctions and making the Chinese technology giant more self-sufficient in the semiconductor space.

Eric Xu, rotating chairman at Huawei, said the company along with other domestic firms, jointly created electronic chip design tools required to make semiconductors at 14 nanometers and above, according to a speech obtained by Chinese financial and business publication Yicai.

Xu said those tools will be verified this year, which would allow them to be put into use.
Huawei was not immediately available for comment when contacted by CNBC.

If Xu’s claims are true, Huawei would have taken a step to reducing its reliance on U.S. technology in semiconductors. U.S. firms dominate the chip design tool market with companies like Synopsys and Cadence Design Systems.

But in 2020, Washington, through sanctions, cut off Huawei from American chipmaking tools, which crippled the Chinese technology giant’s smartphone business.
Xu’s speech said that the design tools would be for 14 nanometer chips and above. The nanometer figure refers to the size of each individual transistor on a chip. The smaller the transistor, the more of them can be packed onto a single semiconductor. Typically, a reduction in nanometer size can yield more powerful and efficient chips.

However 14 nanometer chips are several generations behind what is currently being put into the latest smartphone technology. For example, Apple’s iPhone 14 Pro Max uses a 5 nanometer chip. However, 14 nanometer chips may be used in some of the company’s other products.

Pranay Kotasthane, chairperson of the high tech geopolitics program at the Takshashila Institution, told CNBC he would wait to see more details before knowing how effective Huawei’s design tools are.

Kotasthane explained that contract chip manufacturing firms, also known as foundries, work with semiconductor design companies to come up with a set of files called a Process Design Kit. This PDK “models the physical and electrical characteristics” of the basic components of a chip. The design firm and manufacturer needs to go through a process to optimize the production to ensure the highest yield of semiconductors. If this process does not happen, then “chip designs will fail when converted into silicon,” Kotasthane said.

“There’s not enough proof yet to suggest that Chinese EDA [electronic design automation] companies have crossed this barrier,” Kotasthane said.

 
I'm not familiar with the fine detail of US EDA sanctions on China, but do remember reading that these were originally aimed at denying access to the most advanced processes (things like EUV and GAA). So are >=14nm tools actually embargoed today ?

To successfully use EDA tools on designs of any difficulty, you need the tools and effective support and maintenance.

But China must start on older processes here. Without access to and active cooperation with the leading edge foundries, there's no way for an EDA company to reliably support the most advanced processes.

Note that the report says that the tools have been "created", but not yet "verified". There's a big difference between the two - and a lot of time and effort needed.
 
[...], jointly created electronic chip design tools required to make semiconductors at 14 nanometers and above.
The original text is "above 14nm", lacking the word indicating "inclusive", thereby entertaining the ambiguity of whether 14nm is included. Not sure if that is a big deal though.
 
I can comment on ts16 and gf14. They are very similar (gf has handshaking, which I cannot elaborate on). Since ts16 is also done in China, you have to believe that the Chinese are experts in 16/14nm processes.

TooLongInEDA, you have apparently have been in EDA too long do not know that why Globetrotter calls their software a "license manager" as opposed to software security. The licensing teams at the big 3 are idiots and the CEOs were OK with that. I emailed complaints to all 3 CEOs 13 years ago and cursed one them out at DAC when he suggested that I speak to his licensing guy. I told him that HE should be speaking to his F**King licensing guy.

C'mon, why would anybody in China develop EDA software? China encourages stealing. Just don't criticize the government, and all is good.

One large IC design house told me that they wanted me to use this license manager for our EDA platform. I told them to F**K off. My answer now is the same. The West and Japan and need to buy licenses. China and some other countries steal it. That is who we are competing with. We need to stop them on the hard equipment side. I think you know that. We have had too many CEOs of EDA (and hardware) companies who have been tolerant of these thefts.

I can keep going on this topic. It is very disturbing.
 
I can comment on ts16 and gf14. They are very similar (gf has handshaking, which I cannot elaborate on). Since ts16 is also done in China, you have to believe that the Chinese are experts in 16/14nm processes.

TooLongInEDA, you have apparently have been in EDA too long do not know that why Globetrotter calls their software a "license manager" as opposed to software security. The licensing teams at the big 3 are idiots and the CEOs were OK with that. I emailed complaints to all 3 CEOs 13 years ago and cursed one them out at DAC when he suggested that I speak to his licensing guy. I told him that HE should be speaking to his F**King licensing guy.

C'mon, why would anybody in China develop EDA software? China encourages stealing. Just don't criticize the government, and all is good.

One large IC design house told me that they wanted me to use this license manager for our EDA platform. I told them to F**K off. My answer now is the same. The West and Japan and need to buy licenses. China and some other countries steal it. That is who we are competing with. We need to stop them on the hard equipment side. I think you know that. We have had too many CEOs of EDA (and hardware) companies who have been tolerant of these thefts.

I can keep going on this topic. It is very disturbing.
Not sure we're actually disagreeing. I made no comments on licencing. You can cheat licences or steal code (as Avant! once did). But that's not always enough. It's rather more difficult to maintain stolen code you don't know (it's hard enough to support some legacy code within a company) or get support for illegal software when you're a week from tapeout and you run into a bug/limitation you can't work around. May not be much of an issue on older technologies. But will be on anything at the leading edge.
 
They don't need the source code. They have the executables, just like TI, ADI, Broadcom, except the get it for free. They can make adjustments with Skill code, etc. Why build if you can legally steal it?

I don't consider 16-14nm and old technology. It is pretty awesome actually. We have a formidable opponent. They are playing to win... at all costs. They acquire what they need. For the commies, the ends justifies the means.
 
They don't need the source code. They have the executables, just like TI, ADI, Broadcom, except the get it for free. They can make adjustments with Skill code, etc. Why build if you can legally steal it?

I don't consider 16-14nm and old technology. It is pretty awesome actually. We have a formidable opponent. They are playing to win... at all costs. They acquire what they need. For the commies, the ends justifies the means.
Are you sure it was indeed stolen instead of there being a secret quid pro quo to give it away as a condition of something like entry into the Chinese market?

It would explain why the company leadership and board aren't disturbed about it.

I read a lot of these stories over the years but they usually turn out a lot more prosaic like X company's negotiators made a deal in Beijing that seems unfavourable in hindsight. Like Hitachi giving away nearly all of their cutting edge high speed rail technology (at the time) for not a whole lot of business but perhaps some political advantage elsewhere.

There are some cases like Nortel where I've heard credible rumours that many things were genuinely stolen, i.e. not part of a secret quid pro quo.

But the rumours in Nortel's case weren't limited to just one country or one faction doing the stealing...
 
Last edited:
So EDA companies give away their source code to sell their executibles?
Oil companies should give away refineries to sell oil?
Bottling companies should give away robots to sell soda?

Is that the plan?
 
So EDA companies give away their source code to sell their executibles?
Oil companies should give away refineries to sell oil?
Bottling companies should give away robots to sell soda?

Is that the plan?
I'm not quite sure what your referring to, but giving away source code to sell a derived product is a possible course of action for many. Though unlikely to be profit maximizing.

If I were in charge of an EDA company I probably wouldn't consider it outside of extraordinary circumstances.
 
Last edited:
So EDA companies give away their source code to sell their executibles?
Oil companies should give away refineries to sell oil?
Bottling companies should give away robots to sell soda?

Is that the plan?
That was effectively the price the CCP demanded for entry to the huge Chinese market in many industries in the 1990s. Too many Western companies chose to pay it. No one forced them to.

EDA in my experience is not simply a "just buy the software" business but rather a "software plus services" one. Much as the aero engines business (GE, Rolls Royce) is as much about ongoing maintenance and support as engine sales and these are difficult to separate as businesses. So getting source code (or binaries) whilst necessary is far from sufficient.
 
Back
Top