Two crowns are owned by the US: design and verification/design software and hardware tooling (my career is in verification). That's why China is non-export list for all of chip-design tooling and why China is now investing into their own tooling. It will take them time (maybe 2 decades ?) to catch up on tooling.

> That's why China is non-export list for all of chip-design tooling

And that's, in part, why every IC shop I checked in China ran off decade old warezed Cadence EDAs.

Who could've knew that warez market exists even for such rare, pretty much custom made software for which there are less than <100 licensors in the world.

When you hear hoofbeats in Africa and are puzzled, think zebras, not horses: espionage, not warez

I did a six month contract for ASML years ago. Their Asian (and especially Chinese) sales people were notorious for giving away gigabytes and terabytes worth of “free” software or DVD images to any customer or potential customer who asked for them.

This caused major problems for the WAN between ASML headquarters in Eindhoven and the remote offices in those Asian countries.

True, and I know that a famous verilog simulator was sold to a chinese company as a _single_ license... lol ! But without support, especially as you go down the rabbit hole of prototyping/emulation, they won't compete. They know it and that's why China is building a complete set of verification and design tool of their own. It will take a while to catch up though...

Every company that uses Cadence, etc. has somebody on staff who can "handle" the license server "issues", whether in the US or overseas.

The difference is that in the US enough licenses are used to pay for the "average" number of users, while overseas it's zero.

And frankly, if the big EDA tools companies actually fixed and improved their software instead of milking it for decades, legit US clients would care more than they do now.

For those who haven't had the pleasure, most EDA products are like buying a boxed Windows in 2021 and they turn out to actually be Win 3.1 - no exaggeration.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

Huawei did actually have the IP for 5G?