Breaking News
Blog

No Test Equipment Companies? Impossible!

Blog
10/25/2013 11:20 AM EDT

 3 comments   post a comment
NO RATINGS
View Comments: Threaded | Newest First | Oldest First
JeffL_2
User Rank
Author
Why bother with this list?
JeffL_2   10/25/2013 1:31:46 PM
NO RATINGS
...after all their measurement is solely based on some "patent related metrics" they're not very forthcoming in talking about. I'm sure that outfits and organizations like Adafruit, Arduino, Parallax, Raspberry (Pi) and others will be interested to know that they're not even being considered to be involved in "innovation". Outrageous!

Caleb Kraft
User Rank
Author
Re: Why bother with this list?
Caleb Kraft   10/25/2013 2:03:59 PM
NO RATINGS
I believe Adafruit does in fact patent their stuff, but they also have an open license for use. I'm not sure of the details, but I've heard this is so they can stop big companies from patenting their stuff and closing it to the public.

docdivakar
User Rank
Author
Regarding Top-100 Global Innovator Companies
docdivakar   10/28/2013 8:35:42 PM
NO RATINGS
It is interesting to note that there is NOT a single company from China & India. I looked briefly at the methodology applied in the Thomson Reuters study and yet to review the detailed report. I suppose I will have many issues to pick on! The report does mention the fact that even though China filed many patent applications, it did not make it to the list third year in a row... perhaps Chinese companies under consideration did not 'influence' enough globally!

@Martin: test companies are usually taken for granted... the test equipments are amazing pieces of technology, whether one is using a 40-gig PHY layer tester, traffic generators. etc.

MP Divakar

Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed