[Cyph0n]

> I really doubt that the EDA software is really that much of an investment these days

If EDA tools were so simple, why don't the big IC design companies -- e.g., Intel, Apple, Samsung -- just build their own in-house tools instead of paying millions in license fees?

> It's the lithography tech that's the real crown jewel, and it is being protected.

Sure, but lithography tech is useless unless you have access to solid tooling for design verification. In IC design, no one can afford to debug issues after the chip is fabricated. EDA toolchains include complex simulation software that, when combined with fab-provided models, allow you to simulate circuit behavior down to the lowest level.

[monocasa]

Millions is not that much. TCO of six engineers for a year gets you into millions. If it's a solved problem, it's probably worth just buying off the street.

[Cyph0n]

I hope someone can correct me in this thread, but I recall hearing that a single-seat license can cost ~$50k per year. I would imagine that any company with a large number of ASIC engineers would love to reduce that overhead.

Regardless, none of what you said disagrees with the point that EDA tools are complex and should therefore be protected from Chinese influence.

[monocasa]

You always get screwed in niche B2B on a single seat license. There's no way the chip manufacturers are actually spending anywhere near that much.

And they really aren't that complex. China has more than enough capability to reproduce them.

I guess I'm not sure how to prove a negative here. What do you think is so special about EDA software that isn't fairly easy replicable? Other than the fab design rules, which if I'm making a litho vs EDA distinction in the first place aren't really a part of EDA.

[Cyph0n]

And I’m not sure why you still think that EDA tools are so simple. I guess we’re at an impasse, then.

Going back to my first comment: I would be extremely impressed if China is able to build a home-grown, state-of-the-art EDA toolchain. I also still think that the US should work to protect its existing advantage in this area.

[thawaway1837]

The poster isn’t saying they are simple. The poster is claiming they are complex enough that they are non trivial to create and maintain, and not expensive enough that it’s worth it for these companies to go through the effort to create an alternative. (50k per seat, which almost certainly is lower on an enterprise license, is about 20-25% of the cost of an employee, and probably lower when you consider the non salary costs of an employee such as benefits, payroll taxes, office seat rent, food, etc). The equation obviously changes when the lack of availability of the tool is an existential threat and therefore worth billions.

[CharlesColeman]

> I would be extremely impressed if China is able to build a home-grown, state-of-the-art EDA toolchain.

Software is something that's relatively easily stolen, and I'm kinda skeptical it's a national-interest trade secret that can be effectively protected. It probably wouldn't be that hard for a nation-state to hack the EDA vendor and grab their source tree and a build server image. Even if an obviously-pirated version is never released, that level of access would greatly accelerate the development of a workalike clone. That clone may not end up being state of the art, but it could be good enough to neutralize any advantage.

[fspeech]

You seem to be convinced that software vendors could unilaterally control where and how their software is used. If they have this kind of power why do they need copyright protection in the first place? Why do we need a trade war as the US supply a majority of software in use, some of which far more critical than EDA software.