Not to beat a dead horse, but we’ve been speaking the past few months about corporate mergers and the intersection between academia and industry, and while these are separate topics, to be sure, I am motivated to continue both conversations.

In the wake of Cadence’s acquisition of EMA Design Automation, I warned of the risks to EMA's customer-centric culture as it assimilates into its new parent. I also pointed out the possibility that the investment in EMA’s novel tools could wane: a $5 billion company might not see value in supporting products that, in their entirety, might be worth less than a single average-sized customer.

Having returned from the IPC Apex trade show and listening to comments from stakeholders who are charged for volunteering their time to develop standards, one wonders if there is a better way.

Having spent four years of my career in standards development, I know the process well. Groups of engineers, often from competing companies, gather around tables to debate the ins and outs of everything from what an end-product should look like and how it should perform to the placement of commas and the meaning of “shall” versus “should.”

Typically, the acquisition of a software distributor isn’t big news.

But EMA Design Automation isn’t your ordinary distributor. And its purchase, by Cadence, isn’t your ordinary acquisition.

The EIPC Winter Conference in February was revealing for several reasons, not the least of which was that the view among the 125 primarily European electronics engineers and executives in attendance was their industry and governments had failed them by not acting more swiftly and vigorously to staunch the offshoring tide.