5 ms·

In a world where you don't have protections for IP, yes. That's a major part of the reason that Chinese companies like Huawei and SMIC find themselves on the na

In a world where you don't have protections for IP, yes. That's a major part of the reason that Chinese companies like Huawei and SMIC find themselves on the naughty list -- it's not just about national security and slave labor. However, companies like Qualcomm and ARM wouldn't be able to exist without a strong global IP law infrastructure, but the former is a juggernaut and the latter is an object of desire.

KaoruAoiShiho 6y ago
Think it's more accurate to say the US dominates software ecosystems that keep the processor designs relevant. China and Korea also have competitive processors.
- totalZero 6y ago
  My point in the comment to which you responded is not that entirety of each constituent stage of the semiconductor production cycle belongs entirely to a different country. Rather, I contend that the lion's share of each constituent stage is maintained by a different country. I agree that Korea has competitive processor designs. Of course, even Samsung uses many Qualcomm SoCs and licenses many Qualcomm patents. If you remove US-developed design IP entirely from the Samsung portfolio, how many Samsung products would be affected? I think many.
baybal2 6y ago
> However, companies like Qualcomm and ARM wouldn't be able to exist without a strong global IP law infrastructure They could've easily did that. I myself saw rather new ARM cores being all around Chinese FTPs. The thing is, just macros, or verilog code alone is near useless without tons of documentation, spoonfeeding by ARM FAEs, and tooling support.
- totalZero 6y ago
  There is absolutely zero chance that Qualcomm could exist without being able to protect its IP in court. The model of their licensing business is to do years of R&D, then spend years selling rights to the work product to pay for the next cycle of R&D. Cost of revenues for the licensing business (R&D) are out of sync with the sales that they later generate. Licensing revenue was 40% of QCOM's total revenue last quarter. How exactly do you suggest they make money by selling IP without a legal environment that protects their contracts and patents? Same goes for ARM. Their entire business is making and licensing designs internationally. That's what they do. That's how they make money. > The thing is, just macros, or verilog code alone is near useless without tons of documentation, spoonfeeding by ARM FAEs, and tooling support. Looking at past cases, I think this is an extremely poor characterization of how infringement actually happens. More likely, (A) customers (or former customers) use licensed technology for which they underpay (or refuse to pay); or (B) competitors hiring engineers from customers or former customers to compete with the company.
Kimm0n0 6y ago
Huawei did actually have the IP for 5G?

KaoruAoiShiho 6y ago

Think it's more accurate to say the US dominates software ecosystems that keep the processor designs relevant. China and Korea also have competitive processors.

totalZero 6y ago
My point in the comment to which you responded is not that entirety of each constituent stage of the semiconductor production cycle belongs entirely to a different country. Rather, I contend that the lion's share of each constituent stage is maintained by a different country. I agree that Korea has competitive processor designs. Of course, even Samsung uses many Qualcomm SoCs and licenses many Qualcomm patents. If you remove US-developed design IP entirely from the Samsung portfolio, how many Samsung products would be affected? I think many.

baybal2 6y ago

> However, companies like Qualcomm and ARM wouldn't be able to exist without a strong global IP law infrastructure They could've easily did that. I myself saw rather new ARM cores being all around Chinese FTPs. The thing is, just macros, or verilog code alone is near useless without tons of documentation, spoonfeeding by ARM FAEs, and tooling support.

totalZero 6y ago
There is absolutely zero chance that Qualcomm could exist without being able to protect its IP in court. The model of their licensing business is to do years of R&D, then spend years selling rights to the work product to pay for the next cycle of R&D. Cost of revenues for the licensing business (R&D) are out of sync with the sales that they later generate. Licensing revenue was 40% of QCOM's total revenue last quarter. How exactly do you suggest they make money by selling IP without a legal environment that protects their contracts and patents? Same goes for ARM. Their entire business is making and licensing designs internationally. That's what they do. That's how they make money. > The thing is, just macros, or verilog code alone is near useless without tons of documentation, spoonfeeding by ARM FAEs, and tooling support. Looking at past cases, I think this is an extremely poor characterization of how infringement actually happens. More likely, (A) customers (or former customers) use licensed technology for which they underpay (or refuse to pay); or (B) competitors hiring engineers from customers or former customers to compete with the company.

Kimm0n0 6y ago

Huawei did actually have the IP for 5G?