I'm not sure what kind of designs you do, but my PCBs are nearly useless without firmware source, programmable logic source, etc.
I have no problems giving Protel my PCBs when necessary because of all the other information REQUIRED to make anything useful. The board is basically raw material. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 1:49 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: [PEDA] Removing IP from PCB (Ex: Protel's Good/Bad points ...) > > > On 04:29 PM 19/11/2001 +0000, Jason Morgan said: > >The files in question were returned to Protel under NDA, they > confirmed the > >problems as reported and indicated that at present there was no fix. > > > >Sorry, but I can't transmit designs to the public, at least without NDA, > >thanks for the offer anyway. > > > What I have done with this sort of confidential data (even when > sending the > file to Protel) is to do a global search and destroy on all PCB parts and > change their values to 10k (You see a "10k" 256-ball BGA does > not contain > a lot if IP). I then clear the netlist. > > If the board is incomplete, and the netlist from the sch is > required, then > it is a little more complex, but still do-able. > I create some dummy schematics and PCB by copying the correct ones, > immediately synchronise to make the following processes simpler. I then, > globally remove every netlabel of all sheets, rename all the > power supplies > to meaningless names and change all the component designators to R? or > A? or something meaningless. Re-annotate. Then change all the > part types > to 10k or some other silly value (including all ICs, caps, R's, > connectors > etc) and synch to the PCB. The resulting netlist and > refdesignators convey > almost no useful info - just point-to-point connectivity. All > identifying > text on the PCB is then removed, and all mech layers removed - apart from > maybe the outline and the keepout. I then try to remove as many > rules and > classes as possible to reduce the chance of there being some useful IP > embodied in these. However, it is likely that mucking about with > the rules > is very likely to change the suspect behavior, so this has to be > done with > some care. > > I may also rejig the mech outline to mask the target application a > little. Possibly remove a few mech holes as well. > > Then confirm the problem still exists. > > I then only send it to people who I think I can trust. Not to the public > in general. > > So Jason, if you would like others to try to see if you have hit > a limit on > the capacity of Protel, this may be one option. I would also be prepared > to look at it. So I think you have three long-term members of this forum > (at least) who are prepared to see what your file does to their > machine. I > would be very interested in the results of such a test. (I run > Win2K, SP2, > 256MB, PIII-450). > > I for one do not discount the troubles that Jason has reported over some > time on this forum. However as others have said, quite a few of us see > very very few Protel crashes these days, and there must be significant > differences in the hardware we run. > > Ian Wilson > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
