New information leads me to believe that the UTEK EUV program will progress as long as there is an interest in that technology. UTEK EUV is not a cast in concrete program. The recent slant to INTC and EUV relative to Sandia Labs and UTEK make me believe that ETEC is in no immediate danger.
The Ultrabeam subsidiary of UTEK, formerly Lepton, exists to address the desire for good 1X reticle production for sub-micron features and possibly EUV applications down the road. It still seems that the 5X reduction concept allows looser process specifications in the manufacturing of 5X reticles. Whereas a +/- 0.10 critical dimension spec range is a no brainer for a 5X process (end reticle in wafer process would be equivalent to +/- 0.02u), the 1X reticle needs to have at least a +/- 0.02 reticle spec. This is very difficult but not impossible for a reticle shop. As a matter of fact, I think both DPMI and PLAB have attained their levels of quality and capability due in part to the stringent requirements of making 1X reticles for UTEK customers. With the industry growing at the rate it is, the Ultrabeam system is really targeting high quality 1X reticles. Could it impinge on the 5X reticle making equipment and be a threat to ETEC? Yes it could. Is it likely? No. There is enough room for both and ETEC is firmly entrenched into its customers. When you consider past performance, field service contracts, working relationships, technical exchanges, compatibiltiy, etc., it will be extremely difficult to dislodge ETEC from its installed customer base. Could Ultrabeam be assimilated into these facilties to address the "niche" 1X market? I beleive so. E-beam write time is extremely valuable. Because of the 1X tolerances required in making reticles, a smaller beam spot size is used. This slows down the throughput of the direct write systems. Throughput of the e-beam system is probably the single most capacity limiting part of the reticle making process. Pricing of 1X reticles may not be directly proportional to the throughput of these systems so it makes sense to optimize the operation with both the mainstream ETEC systems and another type of system to adequately address the needs of the UTEK Steppper.
With UTEK already tslking about 0.50u steppers, it is clear they have to be proactive in the development and implementation of equipment capable of generating the required and desired tooling. I think that due to lack of support from others in the industry, they have been forced to be a catalyst in this effort. Hence, Ultrabeam. I wouldn't be concerned about ETEC until I see the first operational UTEK Ultrabeam system in operation. Even then, there will be enough time to change horses mid-stream should they become the clear leader in reticle production.
UTEK vs ETEC investments - I am the wrong person to ask since I am heavily biased and married to this stock. At least I recognize this.
Had I held onto my $18 IPO ASMLF shares...OH WELL, Lets not dwell on that. Needless to say, I am waiting for a grand slam homer run from UTEK. I honestly believe we have a chance to see these guys go to the 40-50 range this year. They have gotten too much bad press on the 1X/5X along with the critical/non critical issues. Non technical people are not fully in tune with the short comings of an ASMLF and the intrinsic benefits of UTEK. ETEC is a good investment but there is very little activity in their business. Lead times for their systems (better stated as cycle time to build a system) are long enough that you have visibility out 2 or more years. I do not paticularly like investing in something that is priced 2 years out. A great deal can happen in 2 years. Do not get me wrong, ETEC is probably a good investment but I prefer UTEK. But what do I know, I preferrred UTEK over ASMLF, drat<gg>.
My understanding is that advances in stepper technology allowed
companies to use their old maskmaking equipment for longer than
expected, and nearly put ETEC out of business.
For the most part this is true but shame on ETEC if this were entirely the case. The advances in stepper technology were no different than projection technology. For 20 years, as we approached the brick wall of the "limits of lithography and lithography tools" we always figured a way to extend the useful life of the equipment. Lithographers like me always "cheated death" by our wits, ingenuity, intitiative, creativity, and of course, our wizard hats and wands.<g>
What I personally believe may have been the case was the ability of the mask shops to upgrade their existing equipment and implement some of the advances in semiconductor processing back into the mask making process (like plasma etching) toextend the life of their equpiment. This was coupled with an expansion cycle in the mask making industry that was ill timed with a downturn in the sector. For the mask shops, capacity expansion is a step function process. So when you expand and the market turns away from you, WHOA, a big hole occurs. This happened during the last cycle and we are no coming out of it. As device feature sizes shrink, the improved capability of the mask shops to provide the new tolerances for these feature sizes and registration became necessary. Therefore, the IC wafer stepper does not really drive the capability of the mask shop as much as the design technology implemented to create the devices.
What you may have heard was that a shift away from conventional reticles to Phase Shift Mask or Optical Proxity Correction allowed smaller feature sizes to be created on the exisitng stepper base. these reticle are extremely expensive and time consuming to make. This may have pushed out the need for the more advanced, smaller beam size, direct write systems.
JMAR - Lively discussion is what I enjoy about some of the threads I participate on. If you haven't noticed, I give my opinion freely. JMAR is a good company but I am not there. JMAR is too far off my horizon. I believe there is time to invest elsewhere and somewhere down the road I can revisit it without missing much of the action. JMAR is like a daytime soap opera. Six months from now, I can probably tune in and nothing has really changed. My horizon is a year and I think the horizon of the investment community that would control JMAR's destiny is only 3 quarters at most. I plan to revisit this stock 2 weeks prior to each quarterly earnings announcement. However, I will wait for Fall before starting. No offense meant to anyone. And I know I have been wrong before.
Regards
Andrew |
