Blog

His point was simply that engineering mentality in any high tech industry has such a strong sense of NIH (Not Invented Here) that even if you present them your IP (patent), they won’t use the IP since they believe can do it better themselves and that the IP is “of no real value”.

I know from personal experience (having worked in an IP company once) that an engineer’s first reaction to an IP is that “it’s no good” and her IP is just much more relevant.  In fact in one case, I remember the engineering team I was dealing with didn’t want to sign the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) since they didn’t want to even see the IP to avoid contamination as they were sure they were going to invent something “better”.

As it turns out, the value of IP, just like anything else, is in the eye of the beholder.  So if the engineer might think the IP is irrelevant, his management might think otherwise and see it as extremely relevant since it could provide them a economic advantage or at least a leveled playing field.

Confidentiality might be overrated (in a hyper-practical view) but also in the same hyper-practical view, it never hurts to have one (e.g. NDA) in place to remove all possible future issues.

I personally have the pleasure (or the scars) of being involved with two of these fundamental changes.  One of them was at a company called Numerical Technologies which was changing the nature of semiconductor manufacturing and adding a strong element of software to the existing ecosystem.  The need for this change was due to a fundamental shift that was taking place in the center of silicon lithography - which of course then everyone opposed.   What Numerical introduced is now the standard in semiconductor manufacturing.

The other fundamental change I was involved with was OpenAccess, and I was leading the effort at Cadence.  OpenAccess was an industrywide initiative whereby Cadence opened up it design database to the entire industry (even its competitors) to integrate onto.  It was a bold strategic move to bridge the gap with its main competition, Synopsys, whose database, while proprietary and closed, had a market share lead over Cadence.  Today, OpenAccess is the standard database for EDA companies and EDA users.  Even Synopsys is using (and publicly promoting) OpenAccess.

At the very time of my involvement in those changes, I had no idea they would be such success - I just had a feeling that they were the right thing …. and was betting on that the “truth” would eventually prevail.

That takes me to a quote by the nineteenth century German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, who said ”All truth passes through three stages.  First, it is ridiculed.  Second, it is violently opposed.  Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

Going back to my own experiences, we (and I personally, in the case of OpenAccess) was ridiculed at first.  Then we faced very strong opposition, not only by competitors, but also by customers and users (yes, change is always hard).  And then, all of the sudden, pieces fell into place, and in both cases, the change was just accepted.

What does that teach us?  Should we just get behind any idea that is being ridiculed?  Probably not.  But I think what Schopenhauer says - especially how he says it - is quite relevant.  My experience combined with Schopenhauer’s quote tells me to look for ideas that are being ridiculed while are also being violently opposed.  I am not interested in ridiculous ideas that just face some opposition - there’s a lot of those.  But I’ll look for those that are under duress.  To me that’s the sign where I start to smell someone or something is really being threatened — and that’s what tells me the change or idea might be real - eventually.

After all, love and hate are radically related emotions.