The Economics of IP

By Ed Sperling

Santa Clara, Calif. — Feb. 3, 2009 — Build or buy has always been a question for system-level developers. There are time-to-market pressures to create and test a system, and there frequently are integration issues even with the best-qualified third-party intellectual property.

 

But what’s the actual tipping point where it makes sense to buy IP? Mark Gogolewski, chief technology officer at Denali, said it’s based on a factor of 10. If it costs 10 times more to build than to buy, then it makes sense to go outside.

 

Gogolewski noted that it generally costs IP vendors 5 times the initial investment to productize, sell, market and finance IP development. Profit-taking accounts for an additional factor of 3. Those numbers get multiplied, so it costs 15 times the investment to create a final product that can be licensed commercially.

 

The numbers for an IP vendor, however, can still be significantly lower than an internal development team within a semiconductor company. There is less overhead, more specialization, and sometimes there is an opportunity for re-use of code that already has been developed. On top of that, many companies simply don’t have the skilled engineers on staff to develop specialized IP, which has become dramatically more complex over the past decade.

 

Quality from third-party IP also has improved from the early part of the decade, when off-the-shelf IP blocks often caused more integration headaches than they were worth. They are now viewed as essential building blocks on complex chips, which is a testament that repeatedly throwing very smart people at a problem and learning from mistakes eventually pays off.

 

There also is enough critical mass in the market to be able to test IP designs in a variety of applications. “Our internal rule is that if there are not 40 designs a year, it’s not a viable enterprise,” Gogolewski said. “You even want more designs than that because not everyone will outsource this work at the same time.”

 

In addition, the companies selling the IP are likely to be around in five years. The majority of IP vendors at the beginning of the decade were small startups. Those startups have since been acquired or grown enough through their own sales and acquisitions to have gained staying power—even in the worst downturn in decades.

Virtually all the major EDA companies offer IP. Mentor Graphics, Synopsys and Cadence all sell IP blocks. And companies such as ARM, Virage Logic and Denali have grown large enough, and specialized enough, to have built expertise in the respective areas of focus.           

Share the knowledge:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • YahooMyWeb

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments

3 Responses to “The Economics of IP”

  1. Joseph Kulinets Says:

    It is very difficult to understand, what the author wants to say. First 2 paragraphs are OK. If I am not wrong, the 3rd paragraph means, that IP developer bears a total cost equal to 15 times the cost just to develop IP. Then we get to know that the cost of development by the customer can be more than 15 times the cost of development by IP vendor. Questionable…. Specifically when it comes from the person interested in selling their IP…

    And what is IP here? Digital IP, analog IP, hard macro cells for particular technology?

    I am not sure, that such generalization can really be a valid advice for somebody taking this hard decision.

  2. Tom Says:

    It is a myth that smaller IP companies do not have staying power compared with the big players. It is the big players who have debt, flash offices and expensive managers who are going bust and leaving the market. The IP market is driven by customers who want low cost, quality and personal service. These are characteristics of specialist, small and medium sized, self funded companies which are employee owned and can last for decades.

  3. Hal Barbour Says:

    Your article makes some good points, especially about the proven longevity of the still-surviving IP providers. But I wholeheartedly agree with Tom’s comment above.

    CAST is one example of an internally-owned and funded company that has been providing IP since 1993. Hundreds of successful customers have found themselves very happy with the “make or buy” option we provide. We’ve done this by keeping our overhead very low, focusing on quality IP and straightforward integration, and establishing excellent technical dialog with customers rather than dishing marketing BS. There are no fancy offices or highly-commissioned suits at CAST!

    We have seen business downturns in the past and this one is not much different. A little belt tightening can be good for the overall physique!

    Hal Barbour (www.cast-inc.com)

Leave a Reply