Hi Peter: I have to chime in here as well. I have met Dr. Van den Hove last July and had good discussion of where IMEC is headed. He stressed the need for collaborative research and realizes IMEC alone can not lead all areas of Semiconductor / electronics research. Under his leadership, IMEC is NOT a ditto head for research in the US! One example, very recently, they announced a process for hermetic wafer-level packaging for
MEMS that has very promising attributes.
@chipmonk: regarding your statement "Motorola in Adv. Pkg..." doesn't hold water now a days. Motorola used to be in the forefront of packaging technologies in the 90's but is nowhere to be seen in the emerging packaging technologies.
Loose Cannon? In what sense?
I understand that in 2011 IMEC's total revenue is set to be about 300 million euro (about $410 million) of which less than one sixth is coming from the Flanders government.
I do not believe IMEC participates in any U.S. consortia researching chips but some U.S. semiconductor companies send teams of researchers to work in residence at IMEC.
IMEC is a publicly funded LOOSE CANNON composed of "academic" researchers who mostly replicate technologies first demonstrated in the US ( e,g,. by Motorola in Adv. Pkg., by Intel for CMOS in last 3 nodes ) and then transfer them to TSMC !
They can get away with this because of the lingering euro-centrism in the US.
They need to be disbarred from various US consortia for Semiconductors.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.