RE: 1364 vs. Verilog-XL

From: Brophy, Dennis (dennisb@model.com)
Date: Mon Feb 23 2004 - 00:37:14 PST

  • Next message: Michael McNamara: "RE: 1364 vs. Verilog-XL"

    Shalom,

      I commend you for all the work you have put into the IEEE groups to improve the quality of the Verilog specification. I certainly want to see this continue.

      At the same time, all of us may wish to re-acquaint ourselves with anti-competitive issues which you outlined in your email and promote as being legitimate. You may wish to read "What You Need to Know About IEEE Standards and the Law" at the IEEE website: http://standards.ieee.org/resources/index.html#guides.

      In regards to the position paper, I have read it before. But it is no longer operative. In addition to the IEEE CS DASC approving its new rules last week in Paris, all groups operating under the DASC must now do the same. Since the DASC was instructed to start immediate operation under DASC rules according to the CS SAB relay information, new rules for all groups need to be formed. Since this document is anti-competitive, I see little chance of it surviving as this happens.

      The position paper is anti-competitive, serves to restrain trade and confers on market leaders a permanent market position. Since IEEE standards-developing groups should assure that there are no agreements or understandings - express or implied, formal or informal - that restrict a participant's freedom to make independent decisions in those matters that may affect competition, a dependence on an implementation that is private is not allowed. (In fact, dependence on "trade secrets," as this is, is one of the tell-tale sign of anit-competitive agreements.)

      Since this group is littered with references to XL and I have no freedom to make independent decisions on any matters which relate to it, it affects my ability to compete. You have state so much. In the United States, this is call unfair restraint of trade. It is illegal and remedy can include recovery of lost trade. The greater problem is the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice generally enforces for the federal government, but private lawsuits to halt antitrust activities have become increasingly popular, particularly since attorney's fees are awarded to the winning party. This is a legal specialty which has kept some industries relatively honest and made some lawyers wealthy.

      Your message suggests that this group is used to support an under-defined standard for the benefit of the two players. This is evidence of systemic and longstanding collusions to manipulate the market which attorneys love to see.

      Also, discussions of market sizes, product offerings and details of products is out bounds for discussion within an IEEE standards group. Just because you know of no company that offers full Verilog-2001 support does not mean this is so.

      Again, my suggestion is to review the IEEE website since there are issues here which not only affect this group, but can call into question the IEEE's non-profit tax status.

    Regards,

    Dennis

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-etf@boyd.com [mailto:owner-etf@boyd.com]On Behalf Of Shalom
    Bresticker
    Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 2:52 AM
    To: Brophy, Dennis
    Cc: etf@boyd.com
    Subject: Re: 1364 vs. Verilog-XL

    Dennis,

    I have attached an IEEE P1364 Position Paper from 12.17.1993.
    It might be useful to review it.

    Like it or not, the Cadence and Synopsys simulators together have the vast majority of the market,
    according to the latest sales figures I have seen, and 1364 usually has no interest in deliberately contradicting
    their behavior where all of them agree.

    1364 can sometimes be more or less restrictive than them,
    but it needs a very good reason to do the opposite from them.

    There are mistakes in 1364. That is why the ETF exists.
    A classic mistake was in the definition of $readmem, for example.

    Yes, it would be nice if all of us had access to XL. It certainly does help me in my work that I have access
    to XL, NCV, and VCS. And if I had access to ModelSim, I would also check its behavior as well.
    If you want to donate me a copy, I'll be glad to report on its behavior as well.

    By the way, I don't know of any simulator which is today totally compliant to 1364-2001.
    And when I find bugs in the simulator behaviors, I report them to the vendors,
    and I request them to change their behavior to be compliant.

    Every time I find a discrepancy, I consciously consider and try to decide whether it is more logical for the tool to change or for the standard.

    Shalom

    "Brophy, Dennis" wrote:

    > I guess it is nice that the opportunity exists for one entity to match XL while the rest of the community must rely on the IEEE work as the standard's official record of behavior.
    >
    > I understand that these statements are true and an accurate reflection of many Verilog users, but only serve to weaken and tarnish this group and the profession since it only reads to me that the work of this technical group is to a great degree irrelevant.
    >
    > Maybe all members of the team should be given copies of XL to help in the cause of bringing the LRM into alignment with XL.
    >
    > -Dennis 

    --
Shalom Bresticker                           Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
Design & Reuse Methodology                             Tel: +972 9 9522268
Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd.                    Fax: +972 9 9522890
POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL                       Cell: +972 50 441478

    [x]Motorola General Business Information
[ ]Motorola Internal Use Only
[ ]Motorola Confidential Proprietary

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 23 2004 - 00:22:34 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.