DAC Virtual Register 800x100 1
Semiconductor Expert Forum 

WP_Query Object
(
    [query] => Array
        (
            [paged] => 708
        )

    [query_vars] => Array
        (
            [paged] => 708
            [error] => 
            [m] => 
            [p] => 0
            [post_parent] => 
            [subpost] => 
            [subpost_id] => 
            [attachment] => 
            [attachment_id] => 0
            [name] => 
            [pagename] => 
            [page_id] => 0
            [second] => 
            [minute] => 
            [hour] => 
            [day] => 0
            [monthnum] => 0
            [year] => 0
            [w] => 0
            [category_name] => 
            [tag] => 
            [cat] => 
            [tag_id] => 
            [author] => 
            [author_name] => 
            [feed] => 
            [tb] => 
            [meta_key] => 
            [meta_value] => 
            [preview] => 
            [s] => 
            [sentence] => 
            [title] => 
            [fields] => 
            [menu_order] => 
            [embed] => 
            [category__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [category__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [category__and] => Array
                (
                )

            [post__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [post__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [post_name__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag__and] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag_slug__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag_slug__and] => Array
                (
                )

            [post_parent__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [post_parent__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [author__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [author__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [ignore_sticky_posts] => 
            [suppress_filters] => 
            [cache_results] => 
            [update_post_term_cache] => 1
            [lazy_load_term_meta] => 1
            [update_post_meta_cache] => 1
            [post_type] => 
            [posts_per_page] => 10
            [nopaging] => 
            [comments_per_page] => 50
            [no_found_rows] => 
            [order] => DESC
        )

    [tax_query] => WP_Tax_Query Object
        (
            [queries] => Array
                (
                )

            [relation] => AND
            [table_aliases:protected] => Array
                (
                )

            [queried_terms] => Array
                (
                )

            [primary_table] => wp5_posts
            [primary_id_column] => ID
        )

    [meta_query] => WP_Meta_Query Object
        (
            [queries] => Array
                (
                )

            [relation] => 
            [meta_table] => 
            [meta_id_column] => 
            [primary_table] => 
            [primary_id_column] => 
            [table_aliases:protected] => Array
                (
                )

            [clauses:protected] => Array
                (
                )

            [has_or_relation:protected] => 
        )

    [date_query] => 
    [queried_object] => 
    [queried_object_id] => 
    [request] => SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS  wp5_posts.ID FROM wp5_posts  WHERE 1=1  AND wp5_posts.post_type = 'post' AND (wp5_posts.post_status = 'publish' OR wp5_posts.post_status = 'expired' OR wp5_posts.post_status = 'tribe-ea-success' OR wp5_posts.post_status = 'tribe-ea-failed' OR wp5_posts.post_status = 'tribe-ea-schedule' OR wp5_posts.post_status = 'tribe-ea-pending' OR wp5_posts.post_status = 'tribe-ea-draft')  ORDER BY wp5_posts.post_date DESC LIMIT 7070, 10
    [posts] => Array
        (
            [0] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 506
                    [post_author] => 28
                    [post_date] => 2009-11-11 23:31:00
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2009-11-11 23:31:00
                    [post_content] => TSMC Versus Global Foundries and TSMC versus SMIC  clearly indicate that TSMC is the number one foundry in the world and  it will be that way for the foreseeable future. The question now is who  will be number two? Who will seriously challenge TSMC?



 UMC has 10 fabs, 8 in Taiwan, 1 in Japan, and 1 in Singapore. Global Foundries  will have Chartered’s 6 fabs in Singapore, AMD’s fab in Dresden with 1  more fab under construction in Dresden and another under construction in  upstate New York, so 9 fabs in total. UMC just made a key fab  acquisition in China (He Jian Technology Co. Ltd.) which has an interesting story to it.

 

The Chinese semiconductor total addressable market (TAM)  is a staggering  1.33B+ people with a median age of 34 years. Fueled by  the internet, consumerism is running rampant in China, Western culture  is flooding in, allowing the Chinese people to make technology leaps and  bounds like no others. Unfortunately, the Chinese government funded  semiconductor manufacturing initiatives are struggling due to some  serious miscalculations: underestimating the cost and experience  required to be successful, underestimating the demand curve of the  Chinese consumer, underestimating rapid technological advances, and what  it takes to be a competitive semiconductor manufacturer.

 

Fortunately the political tensions between Taiwan and China are  easing, so technology has begun to flow freely between the two  countries. The Political Status of Taiwan  Wikipedia page is very detailed in case you are interested. If not,  here it is in a nutshell, recent Taiwan elections tossed out the DPP (Democratic Progressive Party) and brought in a pro China political party KMT  (Chinese Nationalist Party). Also tossed out are the strict Taiwanese  laws designed to prevent flight of technology to mainland China, which  the DPP controlled Taiwan viewed as a potential military enemy.



 This brings us to the UMC acquisition of the Chinese foundry He Jian Technology Co. Ltd.  UMC paid $285m for the 85% it did not already own, which had full new  KMT Taiwan government approval. Unfortunately the previous 15% UMC  purchased  did NOT have DPP Taiwan government approval which resulted in  the resignation of UMC executives.  On January 9[SUP]th[/SUP] 2006, just hours before being indicted in Taiwan for allegedly making illegal investments in He Jian, UMC chairman Robert Tsao and vice chairman John Hsuan  resigned their posts. If convicted, the executives may face jail time  of between six months and five years, which is highly unlikely under the  new Taiwan KMT government.

 

TSMC already has manufacturing in China, UMC now has manufacturing in  China. TSMC and UMC are both process independent, meaning that they own  all of their process technologies outright. SMIC is the largest foundry  in China but does not own the process technologies, earlier versions  were derivatives of TSMC processes, newer versions will be licensed from  IBM. Global Foundries and Chartered Semiconductor do not have China  based manufacturing (yet) and also license newer process technologies  from IBM.



 If you believe, like I do, that manufacturing process technology  differentiation is key to semiconductor foundry success. If you believe,  as most people do, that the emerging Chinese consumer electronics  market is key to semiconductor industry growth, UMC will continue to be a  strong #2 contender. Otherwise competitive pricing will rule, generic  semiconductor manufacturing processes will dominate, and the foundry  consolidation cycle will repeat itself indefinitely.
                    [post_title] => UMC vs GLOBALFOUNDRIES
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => closed
                    [ping_status] => closed
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => umc-vs-globalfoundries
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-06-14 21:36:36
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-15 02:36:36
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://35.226.139.164/uncategorized/506-umc-vs-globalfoundries/
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [1] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 426
                    [post_author] => 28
                    [post_date] => 2009-11-09 23:37:00
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2009-11-09 23:37:00
                    [post_content] => TSMC posted its best net profit in a year for Q309, saying demand for  chips across all applications improved. Third-quarter sales fell a  modest 3.3% year over year to $2.76 billion, but increased 21% from the  previous quarter. Earnings per American Depositary Share (ADS) were flat  when compared to 2008, but 25% above the second quarter of 2009. The  revenue results hit the very top end of management guidance, and TSMC’s  recovery continues to be a V-shape, as predicted in my blog TSMC Yields Recovery!

  

UMC’s Q309 revenue increased 21.1% from the previous quarter, recording  the highest revenue for the past seven quarters, and the highest gross  profit margin in five years. Utilization is up to 89%, demand for  advanced process nodes continue to rise with revenue from 65nm and below  growing more than 40%, with further growth predicted in Q4.

  

In contrast, Chartered Semiconductor continued its string of losing  quarters in what will be the final chapter as the the Abu Dhabi  government-owned Advanced Technology Investment Company (Atic)  acquisition was passed by investors in a majority vote. A total of 665  shareholders attended the meeting, 115 of them expressed displeasure at  the return on investment they will receive. Upset shareholders bought  Chartered shares at the 1999 initial public offering (IPO) price of  S$3.34, the shares were later consolidated at 10 for 1, so they  effectively cost S$33.40 each. Atic offered S$2.68 a share. My blog TSMC vs Global Foundries gives further perspective on the acquisition.

  

Even more contrast, SMIC posted its tenth straight quarterly loss in an  endless stream of red ink. SMIC has accomplished a lot in 9 years, China  and its IC community should be grateful for that, but if the company is  to survive it needs leadership who will push it to operate in an  ethical and profitable manner.  Unfortunately it may be too late for  SMIC. A good place to start is my blog on TSMC vs SMIC , but last week aCalifornia jury found that SMIC stole and used trade secrets from TSMC.  The jury also ruled that SMIC breached the terms of a previous  settlement related to trade secrets for leading-edge process  technologies in chip manufacturing. The next phase of the trial, to  assess damages against SMIC, begins Thursday where  TSMC will ask for  more than $1 billion in total fines. In addition, TSMC is seeking an  injunction that would bar SMIC from selling tainted products in U.S.  markets. In Q309 59% of SMIC’s sales were attributable to North American  companies, according to presentation materials from its third-quarter investors’ conference.

 

Currently SMIC has more than a $1,000,000,000  in debt and $500,000,000  in the bank. A significant settlement and/or an injunction could force  SMIC to offer itself for sale to the highest bidder. TSMC would be the  easy choice, but there will definitely be other bidders with the Chinese consumer electronics market  as part of the deal. SMIC can appeal the court ruling but has yet to do  so, both TSMC and SMIC will push to settle out of court (my opinion).  Trading in shares of SMIC have been suspended since Wednesday pending a  company statement.
                    [post_title] => TSMC UMC Lead Semiconductor Recovery – Record Year in 2010
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => closed
                    [ping_status] => closed
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => tsmc-umc-lead-semiconductor-recovery-record-year-in-2010
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-06-14 21:36:36
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-15 02:36:36
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://35.226.139.164/uncategorized/426-tsmc-umc-lead-semiconductor-recovery-record-year-in-2010/
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [2] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 503
                    [post_author] => 28
                    [post_date] => 2009-11-09 22:56:00
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2009-11-09 22:56:00
                    [post_content] => Launched in April 2008, the TSMC Open Innovation Platform initiative  is a collaborative strategy aimed at breaking the bottlenecks of  semiconductor design enablement in order to promote growth for the  industry as a whole.  The TSMC iPDK Debate: Lets Play Monopoly! blog I did provides more technical detail.



 While Wafer count is climbing, an estimated 20M in 2009 to 30M in  2013, semiconductor design enablement (includes Electronic Design  Automation-EDA, Semiconductor Intellectual Property-IP, and Design  Services-DS) will continue to stagnate and consolidate.

 

The main reason for the disjointed wafer count increase and design enablement revenue stalling is FPGAs.  As programmable devices advance in speed and density, medium-to-small  volume projects and emerging technology companies will continue to  leverage the low barrier to entry of FPGAs. Wafer count climbs from FPGA  vendors such as Xilinx, Altera, and Actel, while ASIC design starts  decline.

 Other reasons for the ASIC design start decline include:

 



    

  • High      cost, it takes $50-70M to get an ASIC to market.
    

  • Increased  SOC design density and complexity, the chips are bigger so there are less      of them and require many more resources to complete.
    

  • High      mortality rate, an estimated 50% of the ASIC design starts do not make it      into production.
    

  • Less      ASIC design starts equals less design experience, less design experience equals higher ASIC mortality      rate.


 

The TSMC Open Innovation Platform  promotes timeliness-driven innovation amongst the semiconductor design  community, its ecosystem partners and TSMC’s IP, design implementation  and DFM capabilities, process technology and backend services. The Open  Innovation Platform™ includes a set of ecosystem interfaces and  collaborative components initiated and supported by TSMC that  efficiently empowers innovation throughout the supply chain and enables  the creation and sharing of newly created revenue and profitability.  TSMC’s AAA initiative is a critical part of the Open Innovation  Platform™, providing the accuracy and quality required by ecosystem  interfaces and collaborative components.

 

The financial goal of OIP is obvious, to reduce waste in the  semiconductor design enablement supply chain. People in this industry  are accustomed to waste, business as usual, so this is a significant  challenge! Jack Harding  of eSilicon estimates a 20% waste due to inefficiencies and lack of  experience. I say it is closer to 30% if you include the ASIC mortality  rate. 20-30% of $50-70M is a significant amount, especially if you are  asking a VC for it.



 The TSMC OIP targets include the following areas of inefficiencies:

 



    

  • PDKs,      the iPDK standard is innovation driven versus format driven, which reduces      foundry and customer support costs.
    

  • EDA      Reference Flows and tool qualification, verified design  sign-off flows      reduce both costs and customer learning curves.
    

  • TSMC      IP portal, documenting silicon proven IP from both TSMC  and commercial IP      vendors such as Virage Logic. Cross distribution  deals are also possible.
    

  • TSMC      collaborated services, such as Tela Innovations Power and Area Trim.
    



   

The bottom line is that to increase ASIC design starts we must  decrease the barrier to entry, we must reduce risk, we must all focus on  success based business models:

 



    

  • TSMC is certainly success based with wafer pricing but must look at  reducing NRE (mask costs) which are in the millions of dollars.
    

  • IP companies are success based capable with foundry sponsored IP  (free to customers), and royalty based IP, but there are still  significant up-front licensing fees for leading edge products.
    

  • Design Services (eSilicon) are definitely success based with per chip pricing for working silicon.
    

  • EDA is still in the dark ages with yearly subscriptions or  all-you-can eat product dump pricing where you pay whether you use it or  not, whether you are successful or not.


 This was the second OIP conference, it was stocked with executives  from TSMC and the design enablement food chain. The keynotes, panels,  and discussions were highly interactive, the format and content is  exactly what our industry needs to scale and move forward in a  profitable manner.
                    [post_title] => TSMC Open Innovation Platform Explained
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => closed
                    [ping_status] => closed
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => tsmc-open-innovation-platform-explained
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-06-14 21:36:36
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-15 02:36:36
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://www.semiwiki.com/word5/uncategorized/tsmc-open-innovation-platform-explained.html/
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [3] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 484
                    [post_author] => 28
                    [post_date] => 2009-09-29 00:24:00
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2009-09-29 00:24:00
                    [post_content] => This blog is about the legal battle between TSMC and SMIC which is  currently playing in the California court system. Taiwan Semiconductor  Manufacturing Corporation (TSMC) and Semiconductor Manufacturing  International Corporation (SMIC) do what their names suggest – the  manufacturing of semiconductors for an international roster of clients. TSMC touts itself as the first chip foundry, SMIC touts itself as the first China-based chip foundry. TSMC is ranked #1 , SMIC is #4, see my blog TSMC vs Global Foundries for more details on capacity and revenues.



 



The starting point is illustrated above, where SMIC went from equipment  being installed in August of 2001, to qualified production in December  2001. As a point of proof, TSMC referred to the Fab of the Year Award that SMIC received from Semiconductor International  in 2003, highlighting the fact that just four months after installing  equipment in its fab, SMIC had four processes up and running,  manufacturing 18 different products. Adding to that suspicion was the  claim that SMIC hired away 100+ TSMC employees that had access to the  sensitive process data required to bring a fab to production. To begin  the legal discovery process, TSMC analyzed SMIC .18m silicon from a  Broadcom product and documented stark similarities to the identical  product silicon from TSMC. With discovery came  incriminating emails  which are a centerpiece of the case.



 



December 2003, TSMC filed suit alleging systematic  intellectual-property (IP) theft and patent infringement by SMIC.  Witness testimony indicated:

 



    

  • An estimated 90% of SMIC’s 180nm logic process was copied from TSMC
    

  • SMIC attempted to disguise the origin of the information by  internally referring to TSMC and its technology by the code name ‘BKM1′,  referring to ‘Best Known Method 1
    

  • SMIC’s use of TSMC technologies was ‘no secret’ and was openly discussed by SMIC engineers


 Email supporting this testimony included exchanges between SMIC COO  Marco Mora (a fromer TSMC employee) and then TSMC employee, Katy Liu,  asking that she transfer TSMC’s process recipe documents and technical  training manuals to SMIC. Proving once again, even very smart people can  do very stupid things.



 



Not surprisingly, SMIC agreed to settle the case in February of 2005.  Under terms of the settlement, SMIC is to pay TSMC $175 million over 6  years and the companies have agreed to cross license 180nm patent  portfolios through December 2010.



 In August 2006 TSMC filed a new lawsuit for more than $130 million  alleging breach of the 2005 agreement. TSMC claims: SMIC continued  copying TSMC manufacturing technology for newer (130nm) manufacturing  processes in SMIC’s fabs, it also developed the advanced 90nm process  using TSMC’s know-how.



 “SMIC has carried out massive corporate espionage directed by  certain [of] SMIC’s top operating officers,” the 31-page complaint said.  “SMIC lavishly copied the information it stole from TSMC, word for  word, line for line, diagram for diagram, and even typographical error  for typographical error.”



 



In November 2006the High Court in Beijing accepted   SMIC’s filing in which it claimed TSMC had intentionally disseminated  untrue and misleading statements to damage SMIC’s reputation and  goodwill.

 

TSMC “rather than competing fairly in the marketplace, have  undertaken a concerted effort to infringe SMIC’s legal rights unfairly,”



 TSMC filed in California for a reason, California has significant  case law in regards to protecting intellectual property. SMIC filed in  Bejing for a reason, China has scant case law in regards to intellectual  property. It will be interesting how the Bejing and the California  court proceedings compare. The California trial, which began this month,  is expected to last 50-60 days, and is being broadcast by the Courtroom View Network. Trial updates will be available via my Twitter: DanielNenni
                    [post_title] => TSMC versus SMIC
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => closed
                    [ping_status] => closed
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => tsmc-versus-smic
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-06-14 21:36:34
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-15 02:36:34
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://www.semiwiki.com/word5/uncategorized/tsmc-versus-smic.html/
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [4] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 435
                    [post_author] => 28
                    [post_date] => 2009-09-13 11:46:00
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2009-09-13 11:46:00
                    [post_content] => The big news last week was Global Foundries’ (GFI) agreement to acquire Chartered Semiconductor (CHRT) for $3.9B, but what does it really mean to the semiconductor world in total?



CurrentlyTSMC has  11 fabs producing wafers, 8 in Taiwan, 1 in Shanghai, 1 in Singapore,  and 1 in Washington State. After the acquisition, Global Foundries will  have Chartered’s 6 fabs in Singapore, AMD’s fab in Dresden with 1 more  fab under construction in Dresden and another under construction in  upstate New York, so 9 fabs in total.UMC has 10 fabs, 8 in Taiwan, 1 in Japan, and 1 in Singapore, and SMIC  has control of 11 fabs in China. The ranking numbers above are clearly  disjointed, UMC is #2 with 10 fabs, while SMIC is #4 with 11 fabs?

 

Unfortunately capacity does not guarantee economies of scale:  TSMC owns 50% of the foundry market revenue and 80% of the profits, UMC  is second with 12%, GFI, SMIC, and CHRT have yet to show a profit. Why  are these numbers disjointed you ask? Wafer  yield (good die per wafer) is important of course, yield is secret  however, but from personal experience, TSMC is the top yielding foundry  and these numbers support that.





 Just as important is foundry wafer pricing, which, interestingly  enough, is determined by the customer, more often than not. TSMC is  considered a first source for semiconductor manufacture, UMC, CHRT, and  SMIC are considered second sources, meaning that leading fabless  semiconductor companies work with TSMC first, then replicate  manufacturing at the other foundries. TSMC has the most advanced process  technologies and the most skilled people so they are an easy first  choice, reducing the risk of introducing a new product, and getting it  to market as early as possible. Once the product is ramped on a TSMC  process, wafer price becomes the central issue and the cutthroat  negotiation with other fabs begin. Second and third sourcing also has  fault tolerance built in, just in case Taiwan has a natural or unnatural disaster.

 

The foundry business challenge is to make their manufacturing  processes sticky, focusing on customer retention, enabling a premium  pricing strategy. Believe me, this is a key part of TSMC’s overall  corporate strategy, a very deep customer loyalty program. Examples  include:

 



    

  • Semiconductor      design enablement programs, TSMC spends millions of dollars every year      ensuring Semiconductor      Design and Manufacture Predictability.


 



 



    

  • TSMC       has a closely coupled services group in Global Unichip Corporation, which      competes with the fabless ASIC companies mention in my blog: EDA is Dead.
    



Can GFI compete head-to-head with TSMC? Not now, and probably not ever. GFI’s United Arab Emirates  based financial backing is a key selling point, deja vu of SMIC which  is backed by the Chinese government but has yet to show a profit.  GFI’s  competitive advantage today is that they are not TSMC, for those who  fear a foundry monopoly. Who knows what tomorrow will bring but based on  my knowledge of the GFI executive staff, expect an innovative and sticky approach to the foundry business.
                    [post_title] => TSMC Versus Global Foundries
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => closed
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => tsmc-versus-global-foundries
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-06-14 21:36:32
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-15 02:36:32
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://www.semiwiki.com/word5/uncategorized/tsmc-versus-global-foundries.html/
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [5] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 485
                    [post_author] => 28
                    [post_date] => 2009-08-12 20:00:00
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2009-08-12 20:00:00
                    [post_content] => In the name of blogging and increased transparency lets talk about wafer  allocation, because it’s coming, believe it. There is already a  significant delta between wafer demand and manufacture due to record low  inventory levels and the exploding semiconductor demand in China. Both TSMC and UMC posted good July sales numbers: TSMC realized a 17.9% jump from June, UMC  a 6.97% jump. In difficult economic times the strong get stronger, as  TSMC definitely has, as the 2009 market share data will definitely show.

 

Instead of favoring large customers at the expense of smaller ones,  foundries will look at a customers’ forecast accuracy as a basis to  judge which could most likely afford less wafers. So an allocation will  run across most semiconductor market segments around the world.



 This of course spells opportunity for second source foundries (UMC, SMIC, Chartered Semi, Global Foundries),  but the key questions are: Where will customers get the already thin  engineering talent to migrate design layout to a second source? Will  second source foundries offer migration services? Will the customers do  it in-house? And unless it is a highly automated process, will the  actual migration take longer than the allocation?

 Several of the top semiconductor companies already use second, and  even third source manufacturing due to the massive volumes required.  Most companies use home-made scripts that manipulate layout then use  brute force layout design work to cleanup the remaining mess. With new  process  nodes however (65nm & 45nm), these methods break  as the  process rules are much more complicated. Commercial tools for the  “automated layout modification” required for second sourcing  semiconductor designs can yield a 5-10X productivity increase, saving  both time and precious engineering resources.

  

Michael Reinhardt literally wrote the book on this and pioneered the  design migration market with his company RubiCAD. Unfortunately  RubiCAD’s erratic business practices were not scalable, forcing the  company to fold in 2004 after a debatable patent challenge by an unknown company. The dominant player in this market is Sagantec, which I worked for back in the late 1990’s, so I know this business the hard way.

 

Sagantec, known for giving away  nice shirts at trade shows,  is a true EDA survivor. Originally a  European based research and development operation, Sagantec emerged as a  commercial EDA company backed by Isreali venture funds, now with  headquarters in Silicon Valley, development in the Netherlands,  and  sales/support offices in Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and India. Once valued at  $50M+, Sagantec got trampled during the DFM gold rush and was forced to  clean house in 2008. Now completely remodeled and refocused on the  mixed signal / custom IP migration market, Sagantec is profitable, has a  healthy backlog, and counts top fabless semiconductor companies and  IDMs asactive customers. Case in point from the Sagantec #46DAC demo:

 

Unfortunately, moving a mixed signal design or custom IP to different  foundry process nodes is not, and will never be a trivial matter. This  is an extremely difficult job that will require a broad range of  experience in design, migration, as well as process technologies. In  fact, 80% of the challenge is the technology set-up file, the rest is  push-button iteration, improving quality of results.  If you think about  it, which I have, the mixed software licensing and services model is  key here, as well as a gain-sharing business model.

 Contact Sagantec for more details and a nice shirt!
                    [post_title] => Semiconductor Wafer Allocation and Design Migration
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => closed
                    [ping_status] => closed
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => semiconductor-wafer-allocation-and-design-migration
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-06-14 21:36:32
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-15 02:36:32
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://www.semiwiki.com/word5/uncategorized/semiconductor-wafer-allocation-and-design-migration.html/
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [6] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 481
                    [post_author] => 28
                    [post_date] => 2009-07-03 00:05:00
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2009-07-03 00:05:00
                    [post_content] => A recent EETimes article  about memory IP vendors reminded me to follow up on my blogs about IP  companies, which I believe are the best investments in semiconductor  design today. It is a fluff piece, Mark LaPedus briefly mentions ARM,  Synopsys, Virage Logic, and Denali, but his analysis is right on the  mark. There is definitely money to be made in the semiconductor design  enablement market, on companies with scalable (gain share) business  models of course.

   

ARM has alienated the semiconductor foundries due to aggressive and  sometimes questionable business practices. If and when there is a  comparable product available, ARM will lose out, due to their arrogance  more often than not.  Intel is aggressively targeting the embedded processor business so I’m long term short on ARM. As I mentioned in “Wall Street Hates EDA” Synopsys  is giving away IP, stifling innovation, and is treating the Semi IP market like a cat does a sandbox.

 

Memory interface innovation is driven by Virage Logic, Virage  pioneered it and continues to do so. Denali’s strength is memory  modeling, marketing and business relationships. Who here hasn’t been  hung-over after the annual Denali DAC party at least once?



 In additional to memory interfaces, Virage now offers connectivity  interfaces such as DDR (acquired via Ingot), PCIe, HDMI, MIPI, with  others to follow no doubt. Licensed from AMD  and silicon proven at TSMC by the ATI graphics group, Virage will  technically dominate the interface IP market at 40nm and below. With  cash in the bank, a relentless executive staff, and a new hybrid  direct/indirect sales strategy, Virage is poised for stellar growth when  40nm hits full production and will continue at 28nm and below. The  gaping hole in the Virage strategy is Verification IP (VIP), the  software used to validate not only the IP but the successful integration  of that IP into a design. Both Denali and Synopsys have VIP, as does Cadence and Perfectus, but only Denali and Synopsys can do the total IP sell today.

   

Denali founded commercial memory modeling in 1996 and has evolved as one  of the most successful privately held Semi IP companies of our time.  The gaping hole in the Denali strategy is physical IP, SRAM, Logic, and  IOs, the building blocks of modern semiconductor design. Foundries work  closely with the physical IP companies on emerging nodes and silicon  validation. This type of trusted partnership can be leveraged into the  top semiconductor companies around the world, Virage Logic is TSMC’s 40nm early development partner.  At a minimum Denali should aggressively OEM the TSMC physical IP to  stay foundry close. Denali is also direct sales centric which will limit  the active customer base and is not scalable in this ultra competitive  market. A little inorganic growth wouldn’t hurt either, maybe pick up a fabless ASIC vendor? There are plenty of those around.

 

Semiconductor IP is being outsourced at an alarming rate and everybody  is or has been a Virage Logic customer by some degree. Virage is  currently trading under $5 per share, has a market cap of $100M, and has  $2.432 total cash per share. Watch for a good quarter, a good advisory,  and the upgrades will fly, believe it. This is easily a $10 stock after  the economic recovery.
                    [post_title] => Semiconductor IP Companies Still in Play
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => closed
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => semiconductor-ip-companies-still-in-play
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-06-14 21:36:30
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-15 02:36:30
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://www.semiwiki.com/word5/uncategorized/semiconductor-ip-companies-still-in-play.html/
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [7] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 482
                    [post_author] => 28
                    [post_date] => 2009-05-23 00:12:00
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2009-05-23 00:12:00
                    [post_content] => Years ago I bought my ancestral home, the house where my beloved  grandparents lived, the place in which I grew up. It was more an emotional  investment than a financial one, much more. After completely renovating  it with my keyboard hardened hands, reliving much of my childhood, I  joined the ranks of the slum lords and rented the house out to complete  strangers. Thanks to ungrateful renters, inconsiderate neighbors, and a  vindictive housing inspector, there are no thrills left whatsoever, just  tedium and frustration. Blogging about EDA is much the same, the roller  coaster excitement is pretty much over, now it is more of a carousel  ride, so yes the EDA I once knew is dead.




  






 EDA really came into its own with the advent of the fabless  semiconductor manufacturing model pioneered by companies like VLSI  Technology and LSI Logic. Using excess Japanese manufacturing capacity  and building its own fabs locally, they built Application Specific  Integrated Circuits (ASICs) and offered ASIC services for emerging  fables semiconductor companies. A few years later TSMC introduced the  pure-play foundry model promoting manufacturing efficiencies and  commercially available  EDA software. At that time  semiconductor manufacturing processes were very different and could be  exploited for competitive gains, re-usable Semiconductor IP was in its  infancy, so the value proposition of  EDA software was clear and  present. Today, unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Commercial  Semiconductor IP dominates the area of an ASIC and designs can be moved  to second and third source foundry partners with little or no change.  The biggest design challenge now is adapting to the new process  geometries which requires hands-on experience.



The fabless ASIC Services business re-emerged in the year 2000 starting  with eSilicon, followed by VeriSilicon, Alchip, Open-Silicon and a whole  host of others. It has been a long, hard road with fierce competition  (even coming from the foundries themselves with Global Unichip and  Faraday). Honestly I did not see the long term value proposition back in  2000 but clearly it is here today. ASIC services can cut total costs by  one third and significantly reduce the internal risk of designing to a  new geometry. You can also minimize front end expense (IP/NRE) and back  load the cost on a per packaged chip pricing agreement.




 






So where does that leave  EDA? Venture Capital has left the   semiconductor, IP, and  EDA market segments so budgets are a fraction of   what they once were. ASIC design starts are rapidly declining,  EDA   innovation is stalled, and ASIC Services companies are multiplying like   rabbits. What else are unemployed ASIC designers going to do, work at   Starbucks? Not to mention a smattering of foundry created  EDA tools now   hitting designer’s desks, which is understandable. As manufacturing   processes become commodity, foundries will use proprietary  EDA software   and design enablement services to support their wafer value   proposition. Bottom line: the ASIC Services market is $1B+ today and   projected to exceed $10B by 2015,  EDA on the other hand is a flat $4B   industry that is still living in the house it grew up in.
                    [post_title] => EDA is DEAD
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => closed
                    [ping_status] => closed
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => eda-is-dead
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-06-14 21:36:27
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-15 02:36:27
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://www.semiwiki.com/word5/uncategorized/eda-is-dead.html/
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [8] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 792
                    [post_author] => 28
                    [post_date] => 2009-05-15 18:10:00
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2009-05-15 18:10:00
                    [post_content] => For those of you who follow the market and play EDA stocks this will be a shocker! Jim Cramer, former Hedge Fund Manager, co-founder of TheStreet.com, and host of the CNBC’s Mad Money did a piece last week on Cadence. Apparently he did NOT read my piece on EDA being DEAD:

 


Cramer’s Wednesday “Tech Spec” pickswas Cadence Design Systems(CDNS Quote), which he said could follow Taiwan Semiconductor’s(TSM Quote) 27% rise since he’d last recommended that stock.

Cramer led off his show with stocks that have been“busted down to private, dishonorably discharged, beaten down stocks from some of the most tarnished companies”.

CADENCE!

Cramer said“Cadence doesn’t have much competition in its business of making tools that help create smaller, faster microchips.”

CADENCE? 

Oh Jim, and you started off so well! EDA is one of the most competitive, cut throat industries known to man. In fact it’s a flat $4B market due to just that. Magma’s proverbial pricing pants are still around their ankles.

Cramer says” its management made big mistakes in 2008, but that’s all in the past, and the company has a new chairman and CFO who’s been buying shares.”

FISTER! 

How about mistakes made 2004 through 2008! Good at collecting shoes, bad at running an EDA company, Michael J. Fister.

If you looked at the company’s 2008 performance. The exhaustive list of what went wrong would have been enough to scare off even the most daring of stock speculators. Investors would have seen tons of risk and virtually no chance for reward.

CADENCE!

Also, “companies tend to renew contracts with their EDA client of choice 99.9% of the time, so Cadence rarely has to worry about losing clients.”

CADENCE? 

According to Synopsys and Mentor sales insiders they are picking off Cadence customers like Somalia pirates in a life boat! (Too soon for that?)

What about the bad stuff? Here’s one point: This is a $5 stock, and share prices don’t drop that low for no reason. Cadence fell from about $17 in early 2008 to $3.66 by year’s end. In between, the company’s 30.5% 2007 operating margins dropped to –3%, management was fired, the Nasdaq threatened a delisting for failure to file a 10-Q for the September quarter, and an accounting probe caused a delay in SEC filings. Worst of all, Cadence changed some of its own accounting procedures, and that made revenues look lower than they actually were.

CADENCE!

The next logical question then is, why on earth would anyone want to buy this stock? Well, because Cramer sees the beginnings of a turn. Cadence beat Street earnings estimates when it reported on April 29. And while the company is still losing money, execution improvements seem to indicate that next quarter’s revenue and operating margins will be up. 

CADENCE?

Clearly Jim Cramer does not understand the EDA market but his short term financial analysis is fair at face value. I’m bullish on Cadence but for different reasons. For me there are (5) data points why Cadence will regain its value in the long term:

       

(1) Lip-Bu Tan, knows finance and EDA, has the golden touch, so confident that he bought CDN stock to augment his options for a total of 551k shares.
(2) Charlie Huang is definitely one of the top 10 executives this industry has ever seen. Charlie also bought CDN shares in December, his total is 344k.
(3) Chi-Ping Hsu , a pioneer of IC physical design (implementation) and customer relationships. Implementation has always been the jewel in the crown of EDA and the primary driver of semiconductor design methodologies.
(4) Jim Hogan, the God Father of EDA, rumor has it Jim Hogan will re-join Cadence. If so, look for some aggressive M&A activities in the near future, offers they can't refuse.
(5) Cadence holds $2.20 of cash and equivalents per share so they have a decent bank roll to work with.

My personal opinion is that Jim Cramer is in fact an “infotainer” and prone to pump and dump groupies, in regards to CDN however he got lucky, for a long term play.
                    [post_title] => Jim Cramer’s CNBC Mad Money on Cadence!
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => closed
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => jim-cramers-cnbc-mad-money-on-cadence
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2019-07-12 10:12:48
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-07-12 15:12:48
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://www.semiwiki.com/word5/uncategorized/jim-cramers-cnbc-mad-money-on-cadence.html/
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

        )

    [post_count] => 9
    [current_post] => -1
    [in_the_loop] => 
    [post] => WP_Post Object
        (
            [ID] => 506
            [post_author] => 28
            [post_date] => 2009-11-11 23:31:00
            [post_date_gmt] => 2009-11-11 23:31:00
            [post_content] => TSMC Versus Global Foundries and TSMC versus SMIC  clearly indicate that TSMC is the number one foundry in the world and  it will be that way for the foreseeable future. The question now is who  will be number two? Who will seriously challenge TSMC?



 UMC has 10 fabs, 8 in Taiwan, 1 in Japan, and 1 in Singapore. Global Foundries  will have Chartered’s 6 fabs in Singapore, AMD’s fab in Dresden with 1  more fab under construction in Dresden and another under construction in  upstate New York, so 9 fabs in total. UMC just made a key fab  acquisition in China (He Jian Technology Co. Ltd.) which has an interesting story to it.

 

The Chinese semiconductor total addressable market (TAM)  is a staggering  1.33B+ people with a median age of 34 years. Fueled by  the internet, consumerism is running rampant in China, Western culture  is flooding in, allowing the Chinese people to make technology leaps and  bounds like no others. Unfortunately, the Chinese government funded  semiconductor manufacturing initiatives are struggling due to some  serious miscalculations: underestimating the cost and experience  required to be successful, underestimating the demand curve of the  Chinese consumer, underestimating rapid technological advances, and what  it takes to be a competitive semiconductor manufacturer.

 

Fortunately the political tensions between Taiwan and China are  easing, so technology has begun to flow freely between the two  countries. The Political Status of Taiwan  Wikipedia page is very detailed in case you are interested. If not,  here it is in a nutshell, recent Taiwan elections tossed out the DPP (Democratic Progressive Party) and brought in a pro China political party KMT  (Chinese Nationalist Party). Also tossed out are the strict Taiwanese  laws designed to prevent flight of technology to mainland China, which  the DPP controlled Taiwan viewed as a potential military enemy.



 This brings us to the UMC acquisition of the Chinese foundry He Jian Technology Co. Ltd.  UMC paid $285m for the 85% it did not already own, which had full new  KMT Taiwan government approval. Unfortunately the previous 15% UMC  purchased  did NOT have DPP Taiwan government approval which resulted in  the resignation of UMC executives.  On January 9[SUP]th[/SUP] 2006, just hours before being indicted in Taiwan for allegedly making illegal investments in He Jian, UMC chairman Robert Tsao and vice chairman John Hsuan  resigned their posts. If convicted, the executives may face jail time  of between six months and five years, which is highly unlikely under the  new Taiwan KMT government.

 

TSMC already has manufacturing in China, UMC now has manufacturing in  China. TSMC and UMC are both process independent, meaning that they own  all of their process technologies outright. SMIC is the largest foundry  in China but does not own the process technologies, earlier versions  were derivatives of TSMC processes, newer versions will be licensed from  IBM. Global Foundries and Chartered Semiconductor do not have China  based manufacturing (yet) and also license newer process technologies  from IBM.



 If you believe, like I do, that manufacturing process technology  differentiation is key to semiconductor foundry success. If you believe,  as most people do, that the emerging Chinese consumer electronics  market is key to semiconductor industry growth, UMC will continue to be a  strong #2 contender. Otherwise competitive pricing will rule, generic  semiconductor manufacturing processes will dominate, and the foundry  consolidation cycle will repeat itself indefinitely.
            [post_title] => UMC vs GLOBALFOUNDRIES
            [post_excerpt] => 
            [post_status] => publish
            [comment_status] => closed
            [ping_status] => closed
            [post_password] => 
            [post_name] => umc-vs-globalfoundries
            [to_ping] => 
            [pinged] => 
            [post_modified] => 2019-06-14 21:36:36
            [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-15 02:36:36
            [post_content_filtered] => 
            [post_parent] => 0
            [guid] => https://35.226.139.164/uncategorized/506-umc-vs-globalfoundries/
            [menu_order] => 0
            [post_type] => post
            [post_mime_type] => 
            [comment_count] => 0
            [filter] => raw
        )

    [comment_count] => 0
    [current_comment] => -1
    [found_posts] => 7079
    [max_num_pages] => 708
    [max_num_comment_pages] => 0
    [is_single] => 
    [is_preview] => 
    [is_page] => 
    [is_archive] => 
    [is_date] => 
    [is_year] => 
    [is_month] => 
    [is_day] => 
    [is_time] => 
    [is_author] => 
    [is_category] => 
    [is_tag] => 
    [is_tax] => 
    [is_search] => 
    [is_feed] => 
    [is_comment_feed] => 
    [is_trackback] => 
    [is_home] => 1
    [is_privacy_policy] => 
    [is_404] => 
    [is_embed] => 
    [is_paged] => 1
    [is_admin] => 
    [is_attachment] => 
    [is_singular] => 
    [is_robots] => 
    [is_favicon] => 
    [is_posts_page] => 
    [is_post_type_archive] => 
    [query_vars_hash:WP_Query:private] => b95a88831d3048dd17e3bc233b76fca2
    [query_vars_changed:WP_Query:private] => 
    [thumbnails_cached] => 
    [stopwords:WP_Query:private] => 
    [compat_fields:WP_Query:private] => Array
        (
            [0] => query_vars_hash
            [1] => query_vars_changed
        )

    [compat_methods:WP_Query:private] => Array
        (
            [0] => init_query_flags
            [1] => parse_tax_query
        )

    [tribe_is_event] => 
    [tribe_is_multi_posttype] => 
    [tribe_is_event_category] => 
    [tribe_is_event_venue] => 
    [tribe_is_event_organizer] => 
    [tribe_is_event_query] => 
    [tribe_is_past] => 
    [tribe_controller] => Tribe\Events\Views\V2\Query\Event_Query_Controller Object
        (
            [filtering_query:protected] => WP_Query Object
 *RECURSION*
        )

)
Posted on

UMC vs GLOBALFOUNDRIES

UMC vs GLOBALFOUNDRIES
by Daniel Nenni on 11-11-2009 at 11:31 pm
Categories: Uncategorized

TSMC Versus Global Foundries and TSMC versus SMIC clearly indicate that TSMC is the number one foundry in the world and it will be that way for the foreseeable future. The question now is who will be number two? Who will seriously challenge TSMC?

UMC has 10 fabs, 8 in Taiwan, 1 in Japan, and 1 in Singapore. Global Foundries will have Chartered’s… Read More

Posted on

TSMC UMC Lead Semiconductor Recovery – Record Year in 2010

TSMC UMC Lead Semiconductor Recovery – Record Year in 2010
by Daniel Nenni on 11-09-2009 at 11:37 pm
Categories: Uncategorized

TSMC posted its best net profit in a year for Q309, saying demand for chips across all applications improved. Third-quarter sales fell a modest 3.3% year over year to $2.76 billion, but increased 21% from the previous quarter. Earnings per American Depositary Share (ADS) were flat when compared to 2008, but 25% above the second … Read More

Posted on

TSMC Open Innovation Platform Explained

TSMC Open Innovation Platform Explained
by Daniel Nenni on 11-09-2009 at 10:56 pm
Categories: Foundries, TSMC

Launched in April 2008, the TSMC Open Innovation Platform initiative is a collaborative strategy aimed at breaking the bottlenecks of semiconductor design enablement in order to promote growth for the industry as a whole. The TSMC iPDK Debate: Lets Play Monopoly! blog I did provides more technical detail.

While Wafer count is… Read More

Posted on

TSMC versus SMIC

TSMC versus SMIC
by Daniel Nenni on 09-29-2009 at 12:24 am
Categories: Foundries, TSMC

This blog is about the legal battle between TSMC and SMIC which is currently playing in the California court system. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (TSMC) and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) do what their names suggest – the manufacturing of semiconductors for an international… Read More

Posted on

TSMC Versus Global Foundries

TSMC Versus Global Foundries
by Daniel Nenni on 09-13-2009 at 11:46 am
Categories: Foundries, GLOBALFOUNDRIES, TSMC

The big news last week was Global Foundries’ (GFI) agreement to acquire Chartered Semiconductor (CHRT) for $3.9B, but what does it really mean to the semiconductor world in total?

CurrentlyTSMC has 11 fabs producing wafers, 8 in Taiwan, 1 in Shanghai, 1 in Singapore, and 1 in Washington State. After the acquisition, Global Foundries… Read More

Posted on

Semiconductor Wafer Allocation and Design Migration

Semiconductor Wafer Allocation and Design Migration
by Daniel Nenni on 08-12-2009 at 8:00 pm
Categories: EDA

In the name of blogging and increased transparency lets talk about wafer allocation, because it’s coming, believe it. There is already a significant delta between wafer demand and manufacture due to record low inventory levels and the exploding semiconductor demand in China. Both TSMC and UMC posted good July sales numbers: … Read More

Posted on

Semiconductor IP Companies Still in Play

Semiconductor IP Companies Still in Play
by Daniel Nenni on 07-03-2009 at 12:05 am
Categories: IP

A recent EETimes article about memory IP vendors reminded me to follow up on my blogs about IP companies, which I believe are the best investments in semiconductor design today. It is a fluff piece, Mark LaPedus briefly mentions ARM, Synopsys, Virage Logic, and Denali, but his analysis is right on the mark. There is definitely money… Read More

Posted on

EDA is DEAD

EDA is DEAD
by Daniel Nenni on 05-23-2009 at 12:12 am
Categories: EDA

Years ago I bought my ancestral home, the house where my beloved grandparents lived, the place in which I grew up. It was more an emotional investment than a financial one, much more. After completely renovating it with my keyboard hardened hands, reliving much of my childhood, I joined the ranks of the slum lords and rented the house… Read More

Posted on

Jim Cramer’s CNBC Mad Money on Cadence!

Jim Cramer’s CNBC Mad Money on Cadence!
by Daniel Nenni on 05-15-2009 at 6:10 pm
Categories: Cadence, EDA

For those of you who follow the market and play EDA stocks this will be a shocker! Jim Cramer, former Hedge Fund Manager, co-founder of TheStreet.com, and host of the CNBC’s Mad Money did a piece last week on Cadence. Apparently he did NOT read my piece on EDA being DEAD:


Cramer’s Wednesday “Tech Spec” pickswas Cadence Design Systems… Read More