Talk:Cadence Design Systems

Lawsuits with Avanti

This sentence does not make sense:

He was charged with attempting to delay a federal trial by feigning incompetency[14], but was convicted anyway

Perhaps what was meant was something like the following?

He attempted to delay the trial, but was convicted anyway, and was also charged with attempting to delay a federal trial by feigning incompetency[14].

198.182.56.5 (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Co-founder and ICFB

Perhaps this article should refer to one of Cadence co-founders, Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli.

And no mention of the buggy nature of icfb (I don't know why its called Virtuoso, since Virtuoso is just the editor (layout, schematic). The entire design suite is called icfb (IC - Front- to Backend). Steve110 17:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement

I must note that its product summaries sound an awful like ads 152.78.254.77 00:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

User:Bkerensa added under notable persons, the comment Amr Mohsen - Creator of Patents which Cadence Design Systems infringed on.. However, in this case the patent was ruled invalid due to fraud by Mohsen - see the EEtimes article], for example, among many others. The entire case is discussed earlier in the article, with many references. I would remove this comment myself but since I work at Cadence, it would be better if someone else removes negative information. LouScheffer 02:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Number of employees

There's a source here claiming 4,600 employees and another here claiming 5,600. We have to find a reliable third party source for this, and we should use whichever is more recent. Those two sources don't have a date of publication so I'm going with the latter for now. "Insider information" does not cut it because it is not verifiable. Information on wiki has to be verifiable, and secondary sources should be used. Primary sources are okay too, but they must be backed up by reliable secondary sources in compliance with WP:RS. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 18:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Issues with the article

This article has several issues:

1. In the "Products" section, "VIP" is clearly the abbreviation of "Verification IP". For "Integration Optimized IP (Design IP) - Cadence offers Vertically Integrated IP" I don't quite understand how the part in parentheses correlates with the part before it ("Integration Optimized" is not "Design"). Also, is the "Vertically Integrated IP" related to the previous "VIP" one bullet above? I doubt it and I wonder whether v and I should be capitalized (they may not be an actual product).

2. The last two bullets in the "Products" section, namely Sigrity and Tensilica, are not quite products. They are companies that made products. They should be separated.

3. Allegro is one of the most popular products by the company. There is not a link for it and I find it shocking.

4. Avant! was just the stylized version of Avanti. The actual name of the company was "Avanti Corporation" so the section under "Lawsuits" should use "Avanti" instead of "Avant!" 5 times.

5. The bullets for Blackstone Group and Mentor Graphics under the "Timeline" are not acquisitions. They should not be there.

6. The acquisitions from 2013 and 2014 have too much data (they should be compact and simple like the ones above).

7. The 8 companies listed at the bottom of "Timeline" should have bullets and dates of their own.

8. Denali Software and Valid Logic Systems have no reason to have their own sections. They should have their own articles.

ICE77 (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Variety of products

Since Cadence Design Systems acquired OrCAD Systems, their products in 1999 probably needed to be reorganized and merged. However, after all these years, I find that similar or same products are known under different names and this contributes to a lot of confusion. It doesn't look anything on the schematic and PCB sides got merged. Let's not even mention licenses.

My understanding is that lots of the products in the Allegro and OrCAD categories overlap to a good extent or they are exactly the same.

I was looking at the current list of products that the company offers: http://www.cadence.com/products/Pages/all_products.aspx.

If I focus on schematic entry, I see these:

1a. Allegro Design Entry Capture / Capture CIS

1b. Cadence OrCAD Capture / Capture CIS

1c. OrCAD Capture and Capture CIS

I worked with the software and I saw it under 3 icons with 3 different names:

1d. Design Entry CIS

1e. OrCAD Capture CIS

1f. OrCAD Capture

Apparently, all point to the same software.

If I focus on PCB design, I see these:

2a. Allegro PCB Designer

2b. Cadence OrCAD PCB Designer

2c. OrCAD PCB Designer

I worked with the software and I also saw it as:

2d. OrCAD PCB Editor

Now here are my questions ...

a. Why are there so many names?

b. Has the company merged anything over time?

c. Does the company plan to merge the products under one name and one icon eventually?

d. Is there a plan to merge and simplify this confusion?

e. What is the difference between the category schematic entry products?

f. What is the difference between the category PCB design products?

g. Is Allegro a more sofisticated version of OrCAD?

h. Why are there so many licenses with different names like L, LG and XLG for PCB design which further complicate usability?

ICE77 (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

new logo

Can I get help in adding the following new logo? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TIupm-Ul9gEC_itshHv3XqPD-2mP1SUN/view?usp=sharing Ktahlvin (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Puff interlarded

Ten minutes ago, all of this material was interlarded into the "History" section.

As of 2020, Cadence has a global employee count of over 8,100 and reported $2.336 billion in revenue in 2019. According to Glassdoor, it is the fifth highest-paying company for employees in the United States as of April 2017.

In November 2007 Cadence was named one of the "50 Best Places to Work in Silicon Valley" by San Jose Magazine. Cadence has been named to the Fortune Magazine 100 Best Companies to Work For list 6 years in a row, including in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. In December 2019, Investor's Business Daily ranked Cadence Design Systems #5 on its 50 Best Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Companies list. In 2019, Cadence was ranked #45 in PEOPLE magazine's Companies that Care.

The history section basically read: HR fact, brag, HR fact, brag, HR fact, brag. Freud would have something pointed to say about that. I'm not saying this was done with any malign purpose, but if you were a major Cadence stakeholder you would actually pay someone to construct the article this way, were you consciously "oblivious" to bending the rules.

It was relatively easy to separate the one from the other and make two sections. Possibly my quick solution wasn't the best solution, but it certainly should not be reverted/re-interlarded. — MaxEnt 16:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)