Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Novellus -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rob-Chemist who wrote (1479)	5/20/1998 11:56:00 PM
From: SemiBull	Respond to of 3813

<<Lam's system consists of 2 polishing stations, 1 buff and 1 clean station, thus it is integrated similarly to the SFAM system. Lam claims it has a "small footprint", but I do not know how it compares to SFAM.>> While I cannot cite my source, SFAM's footprint on their Auriga-C tool is smaller than LRCX-ONTK. Small v. smaller. This is an extremely important issue to INTC as you know b/c each square inch in on 0.18 micron fab is extremely expensive. Then factoring throughput - 5 head machine v. a 1 head machine, 90 wafers/hr v. 20 (I believe - got that from eitehr LRCX's IR or a PR, I forget, but its worth double checking) wafer/hr - one can conclude that COO is an issue just from a production standpoint. By the way, when you say "clean", you do mean dry in dry out, no? <<They have not publicly announced any sales, although they did develop their CMP in conjunction with several semi manufacturers.>> To date, all resources I examined, including Dataquest, and LRCX's recent 10Q, show no sales or customers of their CMP tool. If you have information to the contrary, please share. <<The board of directors issue is rather interesting, ala Lam, Ontrak and IPEC. Up until about a week before Lam and Ontrak merged, I believe the CEO of Lam sat on the board of IPEC. Since no suits have been announced, there was apparently not a problem in this case.>> Good point. There was no problem however b/c at that time Lam was not in the CMP business. Once Lam bought out ONTK the conflict was clear and so he had to step down. If CEO Hill decides to buy IPEC, he will have to do the same. Nonetheless, if he derives any information from his relationship with Lam and utilizes it for SFAM or the vice versa, a problem would exist. Hence, I believe they are not teaming with Lam for their CMP tool per se, but rather their etch capabilities which is the best fit for NVLS IMHO. <<It should be noted, however, that even after Lam and Ontrak merged, Ontrak maintained close ties with IPEC. Presently, Lam and IPEC have a cooperative agreement to develop a version of IPECs CMP that has an integrated Ontrak cleaner.>> This is because, outside for SFAM, everyone including AMAT uses ONTK's post processing dry in dry out tool. Thus, I would not deem this as a "close relationship" but rather a supplier relationship. If you know of anything to the contrary please post. Since SFAM developed their own post processing tool and now have integrated this feature with their Auriga-C, they have no need for a "close relationship" with ONTK. For what its worth, I would be very surprised if NVLS bought out LRCX for their CMP tool. They do bring other things to the table. If they looking for a CMP player its SFAM (my horse) or IPEC (with both its CMP and losing money non-CMP business). Just one man's spin....SemiBull