Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
any1
User Rank
CEO
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
any1   1/27/2011 10:24:06 PM
NO RATINGS
One of the major reasons that nanoimprint and maskless lithography are behind EUV is that early in the development of next generation lithography tools Intel and a few other large companies made sure that most of the resources were funneled to EUV. Nanoimprint and maskless technologies were ignored and starved. Over the last several years there has been so much money and effort thrown at EUV tool and process development that it has become "too big to fail".

mark.lapedus
User Rank
Rookie
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
mark.lapedus   1/24/2011 7:59:11 PM
NO RATINGS
Any more comments Bruzzer? I am interested

KB3001
User Rank
CEO
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
KB3001   1/22/2011 12:25:21 AM
NO RATINGS
Quite right. It's happening in a way already, but harsh economics will accelerate the trend.

sdb
User Rank
Rookie
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
sdb   1/22/2011 12:05:30 AM
NO RATINGS
Bruzzer - it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Macbeth (Act V, Scene V).

mark.lapedus
User Rank
Rookie
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
mark.lapedus   1/20/2011 4:43:11 PM
NO RATINGS
Hi. I talked to DNP this week. They say the MII is an R&D system. I will follow up. thanks

scummings55
User Rank
Rookie
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
scummings55   1/20/2011 4:20:35 PM
NO RATINGS
Earlier this month DNP announced the purchase of a semiconductor 6025 mask replication tool from Molecular Imprints that uses nanoimprint lithography, making good on the article you wrote in July 2009 (http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4083666/DNP-MII-devise-nano-imprint-mask-technology). They say NIL is progressing to pilot production for semi. Why not follow up and get the latest news from these folks?

atifh1
User Rank
Rookie
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
atifh1   1/20/2011 5:08:29 AM
NO RATINGS
intel bashing in gibberish?

Bruzzer
User Rank
Freelancer
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
Bruzzer   1/20/2011 3:56:12 AM
NO RATINGS
Intel is responsible for fabrication equipment industry consolidation to maintain their own process, fabrication, microprocessor and intra platform computing monopolies. In an environment where Intel has destroyed competitors and concentrated their own dealing cartel by racing process destructively. That is at a pace in excess of product organic market efficiencies for nearly two decades. Honest, Intel has never supported the expansion of subordinate economic potentials other than their own. When Moore’s law is an axiom misrepresented to conceal Rock’s enterprise monopoly objective. Where Intel plans in advance the concentration of compliment’s into their Dark hole. In an environment where Intel leads too productize subsequent process regimes, only to move so rapidly to the next, that the prior is prevented organic commercialization. Promoting the very inefficiencies that limit economic profit due fabrication equipment and material design manufacturer’s for reinvestment into a sustainable development practice. Really, today, why doesn’t an Intel microscope kit for young adults come equipped with a barrel etcher and 20 2 inch wafers to fabricate a radio, media player and memory stick? That answer is fabrication process regime never freed from Intel monopoly restraints. And now, at 450 millimeter, under Intel control invites the catalyst for a destructive accelerant. By an executive team that cannot demonstrate management antitrust compliance to free industry from the many form of Intel industrial slave society. Where everyone knows Intel’s objective is to bar others from crossing a very narrow bridge into the new world of molecular electronics. Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy.

mark.lapedus
User Rank
Rookie
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
mark.lapedus   1/20/2011 1:51:03 AM
NO RATINGS
Nano-imprint and maskless are behind EUV. We have covered these topics extensively. Nano-imprint is not ready for prime time in semis. Not sure it will ever work for semis. Maskless or ML2 is still science fiction.

scummings55
User Rank
Rookie
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
scummings55   1/19/2011 11:09:23 PM
NO RATINGS
Given the challenges, uncertainty and expense still to come for EUV, I do not understand why other next-gen technologies are not mentioned in such a discussion. What is the status of nanoimprint lithography and maskless writing? Simple economics says $125M/tool is not a plausible solution.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Curiosity Killed the Cat (Just Call Me Mr. Curiosity)
Max Maxfield
23 comments
My wife, Gina The Gorgeous, loves animals. She has two stupid dogs and two stupid cats. How stupid are they? Well, allow me to show you this video of the dogs that I made a couple of years ...

Martin Rowe

No 2014 Punkin Chunkin, What Will You Do?
Martin Rowe
Post a comment
American Thanksgiving is next week, and while some people watch (American) football all day, the real competition on TV has become Punkin Chunkin. But there will be no Punkin Chunkin on TV ...

Rich Quinnell

Making the Grade in Industrial Design
Rich Quinnell
13 comments
As every developer knows, there are the paper specifications for a product design, and then there are the real requirements. The paper specs are dry, bland, and rigidly numeric, making ...

Martin Rowe

Book Review: Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design
Martin Rowe
1 Comment
Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design, Third Edition, by Michel Mardiguian. Contributions by Donald L. Sweeney and Roger Swanberg. List price: $89.99 (e-book), $119 (hardcover).