back to article Chip startup alleges Cadence sabotaged processor rollout

Server chip startup Tachyum has been plagued by delays producing its Prodigy Universal Processor, which meshes CPU, GPU and AI-geared matrix units in a single architecture. Now the company claims the holdup was caused by failures on the part of chip and system components IP giant Cadence Design Systems. Tachyum had tapped …

  1. Lordrobot

    Pre-Trial Summary Judgment...

    Speculative damages won't hold up even in a California Court. Whether the chip could be built or not may hinge on impossibility. Unless the contract expressly stated off-the-shelf components, that is not part of the contract. As for TIME to complete a contract, that must be an expressed term of the contract or it is meaningless. As long as the defendant made an attempt in good faith, and failed, there is no damage award, especially over a new design that has never been attempted. The design itself is speculative.

    The plaintiffs have no case.

  2. Spaller

    Synopsys has a much better track record of supplying reliable IP. Perhaps Cadence offered a better rate during negotiations. Always ask first how many times that block has been fabbed.

    1. Tom66

      Having used Cadence IP on the Xilinx Zynq - this, so many times over. Very buggy, and many bugs are not easy to overcome. For a few bugs, there is no resolution, critically disabling certain features. Seems like there is a lack of attention to detail in verification there.

      1. jglathe
        FAIL

        So it is SOP to get non working blocks from Cadence. Noted.

  3. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "These positions held by Mr Tan presented clear conflicts of interest"

    Well maybe you should have done your due diligence and find that out before signing a contract.

    The Mafia has its faults, but not scouting out someone before dealing with them is not one of them.

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Re: "These positions held by Mr Tan presented clear conflicts of interest"

      While it might be seen as foolish not to check it is not always obvious or easy to determine what connections every significant party in a company has, and if Mr Tan acted in the manner described it is clearly illegal and not something any company officer ought to do.

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        Well they were able to find out in time to present the data in the complaint, so they could have found out earlier and saved themselves the pain.

  4. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    "Always ask first how many times that block has been fabbed."

    Indeed.

    It's obvious that a services company with an apparently large back catalog of subsystems would enjoy an advantage by playing the "We have a unit that can be stiched into your design for more-or-less anything)

    Wheather or not that was actually fabbed, or knocked up by an intern on work placement to bulk up the catalogue, is another matter

    Of course if someone placed an actual order then they'd need to do a full layout verification and run some (lots?) of test vectors through it to ensure it coudl actually work. With a signed order it's money in the bank.

    Or not.

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Re: "Always ask first how many times that block has been fabbed."

      If they were advertising a block that did not exist/work, and get their pants sued off in return for killing a project, I consider that a good thing. Might level up between the crap-pedallers and those who do real work & real investment.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        "Or not"

        Which looks like what Cadence did.

        IOW sold something they didn't really have.

    2. Mike 16

      Re: "Always ask first how many times that block has been fabbed."

      What makes you think you will get a truthful answer?

      I have witnessed serious issues with 3rd-party IP from generally reputable sources. I have also seen product-killers (and it turned out a company killer) designed in house, and things in between like "jellybean" IP like I2C blocks that could cause some pretty hard to diagnose problems.

      I'd love to have an answer, but doing business with only those you trust (for a good reason, not just because their CEO golfs with yours). is Table Stakes. Yes, I know, companies can change. I remember when e.g. Intel and NatSemi were the sort you expected to screw you on purpose, while e.g. Motorola and Signetics generally screwed you by accident.

      Times change, companies change with them.

  5. DaveAvery

    @nicole - I think the whole story is starting to come together. Intel adds Lip Bu to the Intel Board of Directors August 11. Now it all connects on his conflict of interest and why Cadence could not perform or chose not to perform on basic IP. This is a big win for Intel as they delayed Tachyum and rewards Lip Bu by adding him to the Intel board which would compete with Tachyum. Let’s watch how much business Intel gives Cadence to help pay for the lawsuit they will lose.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like