[HN Gopher] Japan on edge of EUV lithography chip-making revolution
___________________________________________________________________
Japan on edge of EUV lithography chip-making revolution
Author : ksec
Score : 150 points
Date : 2024-08-24 08:57 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (asiatimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (asiatimes.com)
| roenxi wrote:
| Will this attempt work out commercially? Maybe, maybe not. But
| more interesting here is the strategic situation beyond the
| currently understood tech.
|
| The US has made it clear that it sees semiconductors as a vector
| to attack power centres in Asia. Today it is China. Democracies
| are notoriously fickle, tomorrow it could be India, Japan, Korea
| or anyone really. There is a strategic need here to break the
| remaining European monopolies on equipment supply. For China the
| need is urgent but for all the Asian powers the need is real.
|
| Given the manufacturing powerhouse that the collective Asia
| represents, I expect they'll figure all these details out and
| become technologically independent at least on paper. They've had
| more than a century of experience in dealing with the west, the
| risks of the status quo are too obvious once the US is overtly
| exploiting it.
| corimaith wrote:
| >The US has made it clear that it sees semiconductors as a
| vector to attack power centres in Asia. Today it is China.
| Democracies are notoriously fickle, tomorrow it could be India,
| Japan, Korea or anyone really.
|
| Sorry but this sounds more like propaganda. China also sees
| supply chains "as a vector to attack power centres in Asia",
| that's applicable to anyone and anywhere. I'm not sure why Asia
| is a singled out here, sounds like one to trying to construe a
| racist motive when there is none.
|
| The aformentioned India, Japan & Korea aren't worried about
| USA, their primary concerns are China and their neighbours.
| China's explicit objective to control the entire supply chain
| places them at a direct conflict of interest with those
| countries. They've already tried sanctioning Korea and Japan
| over petty issues like Fukushima water waste. Trying to appeal
| to some vague "Asian" solidarity as opposed to the existing
| OECD and actual shared norms sounds more like an attempt to
| divide allies rather than actually caring about those
| countries' interests.
| lmz wrote:
| > They've already tried sanctioning Korea and Japan over
| petty issues like Fukushima water waste.
|
| Well China wasn't the only one with concerns, but probably
| the only one with the balls to sanction:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/21/world/asia/korea-japan-
| fu... - and why shouldn't they?
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Because it's filtered radioactive water, released over 30
| years?
|
| The main thing that won't be filtered is tritium, which
| already exists in the ocean, and has an ~12 year half life.
|
| People get irrational where radiation is concerned, though.
| mlyle wrote:
| The radiation can't be detected even a couple of kilometers
| away from the discharge. China is >1000km away, so there's
| 6+ orders of magnitude more dilution by then.
|
| If I pee in the lake you're swimming in, that's kind of
| gross... but it ends up being an _incomprehensibly_ tiny
| fraction of the contaminants and gross stuff you 're
| swimming in.
| roenxi wrote:
| > I'm not sure why Asia is a singled out here, sounds like
| one to trying to construe a racist motive when there is none.
|
| How long has Asia been a race? The continent contains 60% of
| all humans.
| legacynl wrote:
| > Democracies are notoriously fickle,
|
| are they really though? At least in democracies things require
| oversight, debates and people are being held responsible.
|
| It's exactly authoritarian regimes that can turn on a dime, if
| the supreme leader feels like it.
| roenxi wrote:
| > At least in democracies things require oversight, debates
| and people are being held responsible.
|
| I'm scratching my head at this one. Why do you think they are
| doing those things if not because they are constantly re-
| evaluating their direction? If you're just going to keep
| doing the same thing over and over again there isn't much
| need for debate. The oversight and accountability mechanisms
| are all-weather good ideas, but typically the US is using
| them to constantly adjust and change policy responses.
|
| Compare that to somewhere more authoritarian where they can't
| change policies precisely because those 3 aspects are quite
| weak. They find their groove once and stick to it for
| decades, and anyone trying to shake things up gets mired in
| institutional inertia. Sure a supreme leader _could_ force
| sudden change in theory, but why are they going to do that?
| He 's got everything set up how he likes it and his view of
| the world fossilised maybe 10, 20 years ago.
|
| Democracies are absolute monsters. The moment they detect
| that their interests have changed they'll vote out the old
| mob, bring in a new one and do things differently. The US
| went Obama to Trump in one election cycle, which was probably
| a shock for anyone trying to negotiate with them.
| ineedaj0b wrote:
| obama and trump are more similar than people realize is the
| blackpill. 'median voter theorem' and such
| coliveira wrote:
| Your description of democracy doesn't match with existing
| capitalism. In capitalism, what matters is the individual
| capitalist desire to achieve profits. The economic decisions
| are made by a few oligarchs on top, not by the population.
| zenapollo wrote:
| Fickle? It's been Russia and China for like 100 years. I'm no
| expert but it might be due to crushing political oppression and
| aggressive empire building. Japan, S Korea, and Taiwan are all
| chip manufacturing power houses, and the only one not happy to
| see China blockaded is China. Though I'm sure they're working
| on hacking into and stealing these new designs as we speak.
| roenxi wrote:
| > It's been Russia and China for like 100 years.
|
| It hasn't been. The US was one of the key players who built
| China up to what it is today, for a significant chunk of the
| past century they were strategic partners against Russia.
|
| And it is worth remembering that post WWII the US was busy
| marginalising the Europeans, making sure Germany was
| prosperous but didn't execute an independent military
| resurgence and helpfully euthanising the British empire.
| There were enemies other than Russia and China over that
| period. It just happens that the other European powers were
| broken to the point where their resistance was ineffectual
| and the process was mostly amicable - if they'd been more
| competent it'd have been a lot nastier.
| ksec wrote:
| A few points in terms of context.
|
| 1. The original paper in Japanese claim to use only 4 mirrors to
| achieve the same results. Although this story only mentions >the
| EUV equipment's optical system is greatly simplified
|
| 1. Japan isn't new to lithography. Both Canon and Nikon are in
| the market as well and eventually gave on EUV research and
| focuses on DUV.
|
| 2. Power consumption is reduced by a factor of ten is extremely
| important as modern EUV, and future High-NA EUV are insanely
| power hungry, with 30%+ of the raw cost of chip manufacturing
| goes to energy usage alone. And this isn't just TSMC but also
| NAND and DRAM maker as well.
|
| 3. ASML has something similar in the work as well. Although not
| to any extreme as factor of 10. But then they also dont need
| these sort of claim to get funding as the one here does.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| _with 30%+ of the raw cost of chip manufacturing goes to energy
| usage alone_
|
| Is the marginal cost of production at all relevant compared to
| the upfront capital outlay?
| ksec wrote:
| One is OpeX and the other is CapeX. I would argue they are
| both important.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| Don't confuse the map for the territory. Dollars are
| fungible.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| I tried to explain this to our finance team, but they
| just gawked at me with a stunned look of disbelief.
|
| To be fair, I did notice were busy colouring in money
| with different felt tip pens.
|
| "This is 'blue' money and it can't be mixed with the
| 'red' or 'green' money. That would be silly!"
| epoxia wrote:
| You can get a loan to spread out payments, reducing operating
| costs would be similar to reducing those payments. It also
| impacts viability and resale in second hand markets.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| Sure, but the question is the scale. Is debt service 10x
| operating costs? 2x? 50x? .5x?
|
| Those imply very different sorts of business.
| red_trumpet wrote:
| Later on the article says
|
| > To eliminate this problem, Professor Shintake aligned two
| axis-symmetric mirrors in a straight line and used a total of
| only four mirrors instead of ten.
| mangecoeur wrote:
| They mention validation in software which suggests a hardware
| implementation is a way off with a lot of practical issues that
| might crop up on the way. So best of luck to them but i wouldn't
| expect to see hit the market for quite a while - saying they are
| "on the edge of euv chip making" is very optimistic.
| adrian_b wrote:
| By far the easiest path for this technology to be used in
| practice would be to license it to ASML.
|
| The older and cheaper models of the ASML EUV sources would be
| good enough for this system that needs a much smaller power for
| the EUV sources.
|
| The European partners of ASML are the only companies that could
| manufacture at this time the optical system.
|
| Nevertheless, it is likely that the patent owners would prefer
| to license it to Nikon, to create competition for ASML.
|
| Nikon should be able to make the optical system, but this could
| need a few years of development, unless Nikon already has a
| secret internal research project for making EUV mirrors.
|
| The most difficult problem remains the EUV source, even if a
| much simpler source than the current sources is good enough.
|
| It seems very unlikely that ASML would be willing to sell EUV
| sources separately to Nikon, providing components for competing
| systems.
|
| The only deal that seems possible would be if ASML accepted to
| sell some of their older models of EUV sources to Nikon, in
| exchange for receiving licenses for this new improved kind of
| EUV optical system, which will then be incorporated in all new
| EUV systems, regardless if they are made by ASML or Nikon.
|
| This would reduce the dependence on ASML and its partners, but
| ASML would still completely control the market of EUV sources,
| even if not also the market of complete lithography systems,
| like it does now.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > It seems very unlikely that ASML would be willing to sell
| EUV sources separately to Nikon
|
| Nikon's out of the EUVL game and doesn't plan on returning.
| They're reiterated this in just about every quarterly
| prospectus for years now.
|
| They're migrating to licensing whatever EUVL IP they had to
| other players.
|
| They've pivoted heavily to FPD Lithography (LCD, OLED, and
| potentially PV fabrication) - better margins, less political
| headache.
| cherryteastain wrote:
| Canon and Nikon are also working on alternatives such as
| nanoimprint lithography [1]. Chinese universities and companies
| are working on particle accelerator based EUV sources [2].
| Question is, will they be able to actually commercialize it
| _before_ ASML manages to get improved versions of their current
| litho machines out the door? Commercialization of a technology
| like this can easily take 5-10 years, and ASML aren 't twiddling
| their thumbs. Once the incumbent has a technology that is, say,
| 80-90% as good as the challenger, the big players will always
| choose them to minimize risks.
|
| [1] https://semiengineering.com/nanoimprint-finds-its-footing-
| in...
|
| [2] https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/china-to-
| bui...
| alephnerd wrote:
| > Question is, will they be able to actually commercialize it
| before ASML manages to get improved versions of their current
| litho machines out the door
|
| Canon and Nikon don't need to be bleeding edge. Majority of the
| chip fabrication market is 20nm, 28nm, and 40nm along with
| analog chips (60nm+).
|
| The sub-20nm chips will become more common as more and more
| fabs get turned on and EUV eventually gets commoditized, but
| the RoI isn't there yet for most electronics aside from high
| margins consumer electronics like GPUs, high end cellphones,
| etc.
|
| > Chinese universities and companies are working on particle
| accelerator based EUV sources
|
| Both the Chinese (SMIC) and the Japanese (OIST) attempts don't
| have great yield rates (the OIST project above is barely 50% of
| ASML's and SMIC's is reported to be similar).
|
| Both will crack it eventually, but the order book for ASML's
| High NA EUV (3nm and below) is entirely Intel, Samsung, and the
| American fabs for TSMC for the next 3-4 years so by the time a
| competitor is ASML comparable, a significant subset of high end
| US and SK fabs will have transitioned to 3nm.
| Panzer04 wrote:
| But how much of the monetary value generation derives from
| small nodes?
|
| Surely the vast majority of fab income derives from these
| small nodes, just based on the sheer pricing disparity
| between complex semiconductors and everything else.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Compounded by the availability of the technology.
|
| Few leading node machines = machine manufacturer/fab can
| charge high margins
|
| Multiple trailing node machines/suppliers = machine
| manufacturers/fabs begin to compete on price, driving down
| margins
| alephnerd wrote:
| ^^^ this.
|
| A good example of this principle is the diffusion of
| analog chip and memory chip fabrication in the 1990s to
| early 2010s (US/TW/JP/SK in 1980s-90s to MY/SG/PH in the
| 90s to CN in the 2000s).
|
| The ongoing diffusion of specialized DUVL processes like
| 20nm, 28nm, and 40nm is another great example (US in the
| 2000s to TW/SK in the 2010s to CN in the late 2010s/early
| 2020s).
|
| Nowadays companies like PSMC are selling the entire end-
| to-end Fab IP for 28nm/40nm processes to companies in JP,
| IN, ID, US, etc, further diffusing the know how.
| EvgeniyZh wrote:
| Canon and Nikon have these already, and yet their market
| share is pretty small
| Animats wrote:
| It's interesting that the author's picture is with a linear
| accelerator. It's quite possible to use a linear accelerator to
| generate EUV to etch chips. It's been done as a test at
| SLAC.[1] But that approach was more expensive than AMSL's,
| since it needed a mile-long accelerator.
|
| There was a startup in Fremont, Lyncean Technologies, that had
| a 10 watt EUV source based on a small synchrotron.[2][3] They
| supposedly got to 10 watts. But that was too weak for EUV
| semiconductor work. They struggled for years to find a market,
| and went bankrupt in 2022. Here's the video of the equipment
| auction.[4] If, with this new optical system, only 20 watts are
| needed, that technology is worth reviving.
|
| Something YC might be interested in.
|
| An accelerator source is much cleaner than the laser tin-
| zapping thing AMSL uses. It's amazing that works as a
| commercial product.
|
| [1]
| https://euvlsymposium.lbl.gov/pdf/2014/39af88b9d637418d86614...
|
| [2]
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220119174924/https://lynceante...
|
| [3] https://www.euvlitho.com/2017/P17.pdf
|
| [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5eGyeNgCSY
| xbmcuser wrote:
| If I am not wrong cost is a big factor currently not the tech
| advantage. It's one of the reasons we got the meme Moore's law
| is dead. So if someone is able to get even a generation or so
| older node compared to previous at cheaper price it will be a
| huge shift in the industry.
| coliveira wrote:
| If you consider that China is unable to get ASML equipment,
| they have strong incentive to improve on this technology
| immediately. If Chinese companies start this path, then the
| issue is not if ASML will have improved, but if they will be
| able to withstand the competition.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| ASML having competition is good for everyone. Seems tariffs
| are a win/win/win
| coliveira wrote:
| I haven't seen any success on the Trump/Biden tariffs. They
| only managed to weaken US companies by cutting access to
| Asian markets. China is doing just fine.
| oezi wrote:
| The Hang Seng stock index begs to differ.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Reducing sales of BYD in the US is a realpolitik win if
| the goal is to slightly increase war machine production
| capability in the US.
| ineedaj0b wrote:
| tariffs/sanctions are meant to be long term, 15-30 years
| before showing effectiveness. they are meant to not stop
| progress but stop 'compounding' progress. if they show
| effectiveness sooner even better! but effects are better
| seen after 10 years.
|
| if A has $500 and B has $500 (and each put money away at
| the end of the year), tariffs on A are meant to
| 'eliminate' the compounding interest of the market. so
| over long horizons B ends up ahead. A still makes
| progress (but substantially further behind from where it
| could have been).
|
| my example is more true of sanctions than tariffs. i've
| noticed many misguided tariffs from countries with less
| noble aims recently.
| coliveira wrote:
| That's laughable, China will spend 15-30 expanding on all
| kinds of technologies while cut from the US by design. I
| cannot see any long term benefit for the US when it lost
| access to the largest foreign market and suffers from
| fierce competition across the world. See the debacle of
| EV, where Chinese companies are already dominating sales
| on 3rd world countries and inside China.
| mrtksn wrote:
| It's kind of obvious isn't it? High-tech is human-made
| and humans are not in short in China and elsewhere. Tech
| embargoes are a huge favor for the receiving side,
| enforcing a creation of a market for competitors where
| your companies can't compete and tariffs make sure that
| your companies don't have to innovate much when your
| people are suffering.
| coliveira wrote:
| Yes, tariffs may work for small countries, Cuba being the
| classical example (even though it only worked in the
| sense of keeping Cuba poor). But using tariffs against a
| country the size of China is a complete non-sense that
| could only come from the minds of stupid US politicians.
| The fact that it didn't work at all for Russia, which has
| an economy many times smaller, should be an early
| warning.
| l5870uoo9y wrote:
| Regardless of the immediate ban on ASML, China has made a
| geopolitical and strategic decision to obtain advanced chip
| manufacturing capabilities be it in 5, 10 or 20 years. Would
| be timely if Western politicians showed same concern for
| national manufacturing capabilities instead of continuously
| relying on outsourcing.
| jolux wrote:
| > Would be timely if Western politicians showed same
| concern for national manufacturing capabilities instead of
| continuously relying on outsourcing.
|
| You mean like this?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
| kredd wrote:
| I'm actually excited to see these projects come into
| fruition. If USA can pull it off, and become competitive
| in global markets, it'll a proof that we can still build
| big projects when we want to. If things go sideways with
| nothing coming online by the end of 2020s, it won't look
| good especially knowing how China just keeps outbuilding
| us.
| coliveira wrote:
| The CHIPS act is a big mistake, they decided to give
| billions of dollars to companies like Intel that decided
| to layoff thousands of people a few months later. Like
| always, the US decided to give more money to
| unaccountable companies that will put this money into
| their management and shareholder's pockets.
| osnium123 wrote:
| Western countries lack the talented and hardworking
| manufacturing workforce necessary to stay competitive.
| snowpid wrote:
| You mean , like Asml , Zeiss and Jenoptics aren't national
| manufacturing capabilities? Or ist just your head national
| = American, western = American and not German , Dutch,
| European not Western?
| coliveira wrote:
| For an American, national means built in the US. Unless
| you believe that Germany and other Europeans are just
| colonies of the US.
| talldayo wrote:
| Eh, we've got time. When NATO allies stopped selling China
| engines for their fighter jets, it took China more than 15
| years to bootstrap an aerospace industry that could design
| engines on-par with Russia. There are a lot of things that
| China has every incentive to invest in, but _literally
| cannot_ as a result of sanctions.
|
| On top of that - an underappreciated aspect of lithography is
| yield. It's likely China can already beat ASML in a lab
| setting with <5% yield rates, but that's not a competitive
| process. What makes TSMC so valuable is their relatively high
| yield on cutting-edge node technology, alongside their fairly
| large capacity to supply multiple businesses at once. China
| has to design a scalable EUV alternative, bring it up to
| acceptable/profitable yield and quality control, and then
| scale it to replace the demand for most of the domestic chip
| clients. It's a lot of work, and it would not surprise me if
| we saw a lot of China's chip efforts echo their confident-
| but-slowed progress in engine design.
| sangnoir wrote:
| Competitiveness is an economic concern one can ignore while
| the government is willing to pour billions on a decade+
| timeframe
| talldayo wrote:
| Sure, China said that about their engines too. When
| Pakistan came to them looking to buy an F-16 replacement
| under contract, China couldn't provide competitive
| designs without using Russian powerplants. They would
| build the JF-17 for export, and that jet (built in 2003)
| wouldn't receive domestic engines until a 2019 overhaul.
| By that time they were competing with a ~45 year old
| USSR-designed engine, the Klimov RD-33.
|
| I full well expect that China is interested in producing
| silicon at-cost for the defense industry. It remains to
| be seen if they even have competitive designs though.
| Their premier domestic ISA, LoongArch, is based on
| 40-year-old MIPS architecture design. Cut off from
| international designs, it's not really clear how strong
| China's engineering chops are.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Cut off from international designs, it's not really
| clear how strong China's engineering chops are.
|
| CATL, DJI, Douyin & engineering post-grad programs all
| over the US suggest the answer is "very strong."
| Underestimating China is not good for anyone wishing to
| remain competitive
| maxglute wrote:
| Enormous PRC indigenous turbo jet efforts progress exploded
| in last 10-15 years coincides with results of tertiary
| education reforms producing roughly OECD STEM talent
| combined. The problem post sanctions was there was a lot of
| work with not a lot of talent, it took time to build up
| talent generation engines, now PRC on trend to becoming the
| only country with enough semi talent for entire domestic
| semi supply chain - every other semi player projected to
| have 10k-100k+ talent shortage in short/medium term in the
| segments they specialize in. The real competition is
| whether a fragmented "western" semi ecosystem can
| ultimately compete with an integrated PRC one.
| alephnerd wrote:
| The actual paper [0]
|
| The yield rate is unimpressive (100 wafers/hr) compared to
| existing ASML EUV lithography machines (170-200/hr) or even DUV
| lithography (300/hr).
|
| [0] - https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.11717
| adrian_b wrote:
| The yield rate by itself is not very relevant.
|
| It also matters which are the energy and materials consumption,
| the occupied floor area and the acquisition and maintenance
| prices associated with that yield.
|
| When all those are small enough, it may be worthwhile to
| replace a big and expensive fast machine with many smaller and
| cheaper slow machines.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Fair point!
|
| That said, 10% reduction in power is decent along with the
| reduction in mirrors, but it would still take some effort for
| an attempt like this to be cost competitive compared to
| licensing from ASML.
| mlyle wrote:
| 90% reduction in power.
| adrian_b wrote:
| As another poster has already said, the power is reduced 10
| times, not by 10%.
|
| At such a power reduction, it should be possible to use a
| much smaller and cheaper EUV source, allowing the use of
| multiple lithography systems, or increase a lot the
| throughput achievable with the current EUV sources.
|
| I hope that they have modeled correctly the losses in the
| mirrors. Here the incidence angle of the EUV light on the
| mirrors is much closer to a right angle than in the ASML
| system. It is likely that this increases the absorption in
| the mirror in comparison with a mirror on which the light
| falls at an angle far from perpendicular, as used by ASML.
|
| EDIT:
|
| Unfortunately this paper might be a hoax.
|
| I have read the 2013 paper that they give as reference [2]
| and as the basis of the claim for the 10 times reduction in
| power losses.
|
| There the losses in the mirror are given only for incidence
| angles no greater than 21 degrees, very far from a
| perpendicular incidence. Moreover the data imply that at
| higher incidence angles the losses increase a lot.
|
| Therefore the system with 4 mirrors at high incidence
| angles will have much higher losses than a system with 10
| mirrors at low incidence angles, unless better mirror
| materials were discovered in the future.
|
| So ASML must have analyzed this simple system and dismissed
| it as impossible to make with the known materials.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > Unfortunately this paper might be a hoax
|
| Not necessarily. It might just have performed at this
| peak capacity in ideal lab conditions.
|
| This would need to be reproduced, but like you pointed
| out ASML and Zeiss most likely tested this configuration
| out at some point in the last 25 years.
|
| That said, the English is very off on this paper - I did
| a re-read and it looks like they're proposing that they
| were able to cut the power down to 20W from 200W
| adrian_b wrote:
| Their reference numbered [1] is a more recent book from
| 2020.
|
| In this book it is said even if EUV mirrors have
| typically very poor reflectance at high incidence angles,
| it has become possible to make mirrors with a 60% to 70%
| reflectance even for high incidence angles (without
| specifying how high).
|
| They have computed their power advantage using the 65%
| value which is a middle value between those from the
| book, so it is OK.
|
| However they have used the same value for the ASML
| mirrors, which use low incidence angles, so they may have
| a higher reflectance.
|
| So according to the book, their system should be feasible
| nowadays, but the actual improvement in light losses is
| unknown, because the losses in each mirror depend heavily
| on both the mirror construction and the light incidence
| angle, which are not taken into consideration in the
| paper.
| coliveira wrote:
| For a new technology, that is not important. Yield rate will
| improve as more engineering is applied by these companies.
| codewiz wrote:
| "This was made possible by carefully rethinking the aberration
| correction theory of optics."
|
| Can someone explain how they carefully rethought the theory to
| reduce the number of mirrors from more than 6 to just 2 (or 4)?
| DarkSucker wrote:
| The new design design uses on axis mirrors to image the
| photomask onto the wafer, and on axis mirror systems are far
| easier to design and fabricate compared to zig zag (off axis)
| systems. I've never designed an EUV system, and I guess that
| Shintake's team had to solve some materials or optical coating
| technology issues that allowed them to consider the simpler on
| axis design. Having worked on zig zag and on axis designs in
| the IR and VIS range, I can say that Shintake's design will be
| much (orders of magnitude?) easier to align and assemble.
| edgineer wrote:
| >7nm and smaller
|
| Ugh. The process naming which has nothing to do with size anymore
| still confuses people.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Anyone that wants to short ASML out the door on Monday, please
| reconsider. It will take 10-15 years to make a machine like ASMLs
| from end to end.
| evrimoztamur wrote:
| Also consider that this article is from 7 Aug, with Canon in
| particular showing good post-crisis recovery.
| SMAAART wrote:
| Ouch! Time to liquidate my ASML position!
| jensC wrote:
| Maybe it is a good idea to wait and see how the market
| envolves. I guess ASML has a few more years to be the leader.
| graycat wrote:
| Recall that early on in such chip making IBM skipped blue, UV,
| EUV and built a cyclotron to generate X-rays.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-24 23:01 UTC)