Advertisement

Blog

Enabling IP Evolution & Growth

On Wednesday May 16, 2012, Warren East, CEO of {complink 444|ARM Ltd.}, gave the opening keynote address at the {complink 7526|Semico Research Corp.} Impact Conference: The IP Ecosystem. East addressed the issue of intellectual property evolution and growth. Looking forward, he said, there has to be more collaboration in the IP world, both horizontally and vertically.

IP companies need to work closely with chip vendors. Semiconductor companies want to hold onto what they see as differentiators. But this may work against lowering development costs.

In the last 20 years ARM has enabled wireless mobility. The fabless model has lowered costs and spawned the growth of many companies. IP has value. ARM's East cited Semico's projection of $3 billion in projected IP revenue in 2012, a 25 percent growth rate. There are more than 100 blocks per chip.

There are increasing demands on chip design. Today the chip is the system. The board complexity has moved onto the chip. Designers have to balance power with performance. There are optimized processing units designed for specific tasks.

Chip vendors are dealing with 50 percent re-spin rates on complex system-on-chip (SoC) designs at leading nodes. This in turn makes it hard to hit market windows. The development costs continue to grow. For a new SoC design at 14nm the cost has reached $200 million, more than half of which is software. East points out that clearly these costs are not sustainable. However, we have seen these trends before and the industry always finds a way to reinvent itself.

Horizontal IP integration involves the different functions working together on the same die — CPU, radio, system IP, graphics, video, audio, etc. Standards are important for reducing costs. East noted that 70 percent of SoC designs use AMBA, ARM's on-chip system architecture.

Vertical integration involves the processor, system IP, physical IP, and software. There are chip vendors that are looking for differentiation, but this can be counterproductive. East said that physical IP development cost increases with each new advanced node, but some chip vendors insist on doing their own development rather than rely on IP vendors. He presented a case study of a customer, Panasonic Semiconductor. The company licensed ARM Processor Optimization Pack (POP) and was able to reduce time to market by 40 percent. According to East, differentiating products does not matter if the market moves on. Production-ready physical IP helps.

In vertical integration every element is critical from applications to transistors. Collaboration extends to software. East talked about Linaro, the open-source software for ARM SoCs. It is an organization that consolidates and optimizes open-source Linux software and tools. Like AMBA, it is a standard that reduces complexity.

East pointed out that the new bar is system-driven design. This will require horizontal and vertical collaboration of all parties in the IP ecosystem with the system vendors. The ARM CEO urged the attendees to take the system view in order to reduce costs across the chip ecosystem.

5 comments on “Enabling IP Evolution & Growth

  1. _hm
    May 21, 2012

    This is very interesting. But, when you are working for small organization, how do you take advantage of this IP evolution and growth?

     

  2. mfbertozzi
    May 22, 2012

    “Small” in a such way could represent a limit, but I believe in the sector as semiconductor, “small” could allow to be competitive in the sense that “small” sometimes means also “be smart”, respect to big companies and intrinsic delays due to large organizations.

  3. FLYINGSCOT
    May 22, 2012

    I agree that time to market is the most important factor these days.  With so much competition and rapid product evolution it is vital to make the component parts work together first time.  I do share the previous concern that it is tough for small companies to afford the high licensing fees of IP today.

  4. Barbara Jorgensen
    May 22, 2012

    I'm a little out of my element here, but the dollar savings you describe are compelling.

  5. ahdand
    May 23, 2012

    Yes the cost looks a bit confusing for me as well since it s not the technology alone

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.