Don...
I am somewhat reluctant to endeavor a disertation on a subject (IP) that may get trashed - with no relevant corrective descriptive effort. But you asked, and I'll put what I can as a non-technical type.
That understood... here goes. As I understand the concepts here, there is a more than minor 'revolution' or perhaps - paradigm shift in the chip technology going on globally. No doubt my examples of the interesting features of modem microprocessors weren't central to this shift, and I do understand from other sources that what Frank noted about the staying power of the .35 and bigger chips is accurate, but that wasn't my point.
The SOC movement (Systems-on-a-chip) is nevertheless gaining momentum. Frank is quite right in his allusion to there being not that many .25 micron configurations out there, but he didn't say why. It is my understanding that it is largely due to the fact that there simply aren't that mnay outfits that can economically produce the shrinkage in size, improvement in performance, and brevity of time to market to warrant the cost - YET. The FACT that Cadence Design, Synopsys, Avant! and Quickturn, not to speak of the 110 additional small outfits noted in isd Magazine in a January article about the Design Industry, are all vigorously addressing the issue of smaller, more complex and more efficient, would seem to suggest that there is this movement noted above. In fact, while Grove of Intel is out of his lead postion at Intel, it was not because he was shuffled, he's more taking a sabbaticle to ponder the direction of the market and then respond.
Keep in mind that Intel have design teams that are working on .18 and .12 micron technology and applications - right now.
The next aspect of your question rather relates to both issues. One can only imagine that the reason that those two had so little stock was intentional. Nothing - that I am aware of - prevented them from acquiring more, one way or another. Then... if one were able to inspect the ownership of IPIQ Corp. - and given the source of the present debacle - as it has evolved in the Austin Courts - I can only imagine that you wouldn't note the same equity mix. But since it's a private company, who knows. Somehow, though, given the demonstrated impulses of this crowd, I don't get the impression that any one of them is overly concerned with magnanimous gestures.
The IP, as I haven;t answered your question Don, is fundamentally related to the team effort between the engineers and the methodologies of designing and implanting a functional SOC. No doubt wrong technical words, but best I can do. The IMES technology - or approaches - or whatever - apparently produce a very fast (relative to the Industry) design with a greater accuracy - relative to the end product - and with a far better performance (which includes speed etc.) than the oppposition. To answer T'nik I understand that the engineers are there and staying as they are both getting paid - which would be the case instantly elsewhere, by the way, but mainly because this IS cutting edge technology.
Best I can do
Tom |
