*AV*--Thanks for the link, it was real interesting. After reading it I guess I owe some of the lawmakers an apology since the article indicates that they agree with some of my statements from yesterday. It is nice to know that some of our elected officials are using their grey matter.
I like Art's comment about the size of the business down the road. I do not like INTC's attitude. If the industry would commit to the technology and support the manufacturer, bigger facilities could be built to meet the demand. We can do it if there is committment. Without it, a US manufacturer would be stupid to engage in such a venture. In pursuit of the cheapest price and not necessarily the best COO (cost of ownership) US based companies flock to the Far East for better pricing but fail to look at the complete picture.
To exaggerate a point slightly, a 10% price differential between a US machine and a non US machine would result in a real minimal increase in wafer cost for the end IC device. The economic impact and technological advantage of keeping the technology AWAY from the Far East would more than make up for the price. I would venture a guess that a leading technology like EUV where the US based companies are serviced first (like it is done overseas by other countries) would help us to regain a technological advantage in manufacturing and allow for higher margins on the end IC devices manufactured.
It is the classic case of "first to market" and initial high profit margins before others can hack away at your market. INTC is the classic case for this with their microprocessors. They are first to market, garner high intial prices (which payback the investment and funds future R&D), and then get competitive WHEN others come close to challenging them in pricing. Things would be no different with this trechnology. IF the US based company could not meet worldwide demand, the US companies would get the systems needed prior to exporting the systems overseas. This situation would create a need for further expansion of manufacturing capacity which in turn would allow for a stronger foothold in the marketplace. Case in point is Nikon/Canon and now ASMLF. Nikon/Canon heavily invested in capacity which was supported internal to Japan at the detriment to the ROW. From this large of a power base they were able to dominate the market down the road. ASMLF is now very close to doing the same thing. They have grown and will continue to grow capacity and will challenge the Japanese dominance of the stepper market with a technologically superior system. The technological advantage of the ASMLF system is what will help it garner greater marketshare down the road.
Perkin Elmer Corporation was the industry standard for projection alignment. They owned the market. As a matter of fact, a Japanese version of this system was developed which seemed to have violated certain US patents held by Perkin Elmer. I do not know the end result of litigation only that the foreign projection aligner never really dramatically penetrated the US marketplace dominance by Perkin Elmer.
(BTW-SVGI now owns the rights to the PE systems).
No one really challenged the Nikons and Canons in the stepper arena. We had Optimetix, GCA, and others but none were able to deliver the number of systems that could be produced by Nikon and Canon. UTEK tried to penetrate this market but 1X lithography was not well received. However, they did persist and were able to provide lithography systems to numerous high tech market segments. Needless to say, the stepper market was bought, lock, stock and barrel, through government subsidies and import/export tariff fees and regulations.
Obviously, this situation strikes a nerve with me and my underlying bias is quite apparent. However, at least I am being forthright. I am tired of seeing the greatest technological country in the world consistently develop advanced systems or processes only to ship it overseas, sell it, or give it away in the name of saving a few bucks.
Art and/or others can raise the necessary funds and if not, the US governement could either subsidize or provide low cost loans to move this technology into full commercialization within the US at the manufacturing capacity levels required by the so-called consortium members.
I would like to end on one question: Why is it so easy for US IC manufacturers to form joint development programs or joint ventures with Pacific Rim companies in order to gain more manufacturing capacity for ICs production but these same people are unwilling to do likewise with US equipment providers? By investing funds to "buy" guaranteed capacity at foundries which they pay for whether they use it or not, they take a risk. Why not take the same risk by partnering with an equipment manufacturer and committing to the purchase of a successful product? SEMATECH was actually set up to accomplish this through their EIP programs and working hand in hand with the equipment suppliers to develop next generation equipment. This type of partnership would benefit both parties if there was a committment to implement the equipment developed and accurate forecasts were made for the eventual demand for the equipment and the timeframe for eventual purchases.
There is nothing we can't accomplish if we work together.
Andrew |
