News Huawei EUV Scanner Patent Suggests Sub-7nm Chips for China

Status
Not open for further replies.

kjfatl

Reputable
Apr 15, 2020
181
130
4,760
It is likely that China will successfully develop it's own equipment and provide a real competitor for AMSL. The question is timing. Will it happen in 1 year or will it take 10? Competition is a good thing. Leveling the playing field with the Chips Act is as well. The winner will be the consumers in both Western countries and China.
 

Eliad Buchnik

Honorable
Apr 10, 2017
19
6
10,525
It is likely that China will successfully develop it's own equipment and provide a real competitor for AMSL. The question is timing. Will it happen in 1 year or will it take 10? Competition is a good thing. Leveling the playing field with the Chips Act is as well. The winner will be the consumers in both Western countries and China.
I doubt they will develop any EUV tool soon, or maybe at all - just to correct the article, EUV machines have been in R&D since late 90's so more likely 20+ years of development. and it is the effort of many companies not just ASML (such as Zeiss to name one). What they will likely do, is what the they do best (arguably the best in the world) is to steal and copy other's work.
 

PlaneInTheSky

Commendable
BANNED
Oct 3, 2022
556
759
1,760
China already has the EUV know-how they need.

I'll tell you why.

IMEC has this tech, and Belgian universities are overflowing with Chinese students. I studied there and I was one of the few non-Chinese doing electro engineering.

IMEC is right next to the University. Most of the technology about EUV is from IMEC. Those first ASML EUV machines, they didn't go to Intel or Samsung, they went to IMEC to do research.

Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger: “Europe has 2 jewels. One is ASML, the most advanced lithography, and the other is IMEC, the most advanced semiconductor research in the world.”

To understand what ASML does, you need to understand what IMEC does. One can not exist without the other.

Intel understands this, but so does China. Huawei understand this. Huawei invites Belgian students to China, students that sometimes work at IMEC for post doctorates and have knowledge of EUV. It's one giant in and outflow of students.

The only way this could be possibly stopped is if governments stop the mass inflow of Chinese students at universities. But universities make lots of money from foreign students, so I don't see that happening.

I actually addressed this issue with a professor when I was at uni, who worked at IMEC too, but I was pretty much brushed aside as having "racist undertones" for questioning the amount of Chinese students at the campus having easy access to IMEC's developments, who then went back to China after their studies.

Belgian news today:
Controversial program: Flemish students to China at Huawei's expense. UAntwerpen and UGent are downplaying criticism of a partnership with Huawei. The Flemish Inter-University Council demands a correct framework from State Security.

Belgian news 2019:
"Belgian Huawei subsidiary blacklisted by USA. Huawei Technologies Research & Development NV" (headquarters in Gent), is a spin-off from the Microelectronics Institute and Components (IMEC) in Leuven, founded in 2010. It was acquired in 2013 by Huawei."
 
Last edited:

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador
Competition is a good thing.
If it's free and fair (i.e. no "dumping" is involved). "Dumping" is the practice of selling below-cost (usually supported by government subsidies), for the purpose of driving competitors out of business and cornering the market. Then, prices can rise above what would've been profitalbe for the now-defunct competitors. In the long run, customers lose, though it seems pretty nice during the "dumping" phase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bolweval

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

universities make lots of money from foreign students, so I don't see that happening.
International students is a tricky issue, because you really don't want to ban an entire nationality from studying at your universities. I think it just highlights the need to have a functioning system of IP protection & enforcement. I don't know how we get there, but it's clearly what needs to happen.
 

DavidLejdar

Prominent
Sep 11, 2022
245
144
760
Might be quite quick actually, as they may not need to develop every component themselves. E.g. them ultra-reflective mirrors, perhaps Carl Zeiss would be happy to supply. And for components Huawei may need to R&D themselves, a lot of stuff has progressed in the past 20 years, to a point where they may be only one step away e.g. from generating EUV light. And there is more involved of course, but Huawei's R&D department isn't exactly small, as can be seen e.g. by the number of their 5G patents (as in actually developed themselves before others, some of who were then like: "You know, if you use a cable from Huawei, Xi can take control of your entire country." - which is a bit caricaturized, but you know what I mean).
 

shady28

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2007
430
299
19,090
China already has the EUV know-how they need.

I'll tell you why.

IMEC has this tech, and Belgian universities are overflowing with Chinese students. I studied there and I was one of the few non-Chinese doing electro engineering.

IMEC is right next to the University. Most of the technology about EUV is from IMEC. Those first ASML EUV machines, they didn't go to Intel or Samsung, they went to IMEC to do research.

Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger: “Europe has 2 jewels. One is ASML, the most advanced lithography, and the other is IMEC, the most advanced semiconductor research in the world.”

To understand what ASML does, you need to understand what IMEC does. One can not exist without the other.

Intel understands this, but so does China. Huawei understand this. Huawei invites Belgian students to China, students that sometimes work at IMEC for post doctorates and have knowledge of EUV. It's one giant in and outflow of students.

The only way this could be possibly stopped is if governments stop the mass inflow of Chinese students at universities. But universities make lots of money from foreign students, so I don't see that happening.

I actually addressed this issue with a professor when I was at uni, who worked at IMEC too, but I was pretty much brushed aside as having "racist undertones" for questioning the amount of Chinese students at the campus having easy access to IMEC's developments, who then went back to China after their studies.

Belgian news today:


Belgian news 2019:


What you describe as far as the number of Chinese students has been the case at least since the 1990s, though probably not to the level it's at now.

When I was in school back then, I had a Chinese roommate. I was going for my BS in Comp Sci and he was going for his Masters. His undergrad degree was in 'Signal Analysis'. They do things differently in China's universities, at least back then. They would go from a very specific discipline at undergrad, to more generalization at doctoral. Western schools tend to go from generalization, to specialization.

Anyway, I had a number of conversations with him about this, because I had the same question then as people generally do now. With all these PHD engineers running around, why isn't China on top of tech?

His answer was interesting. Has to more to do with social structure, than availability of educated people with the correct skills.

It came down to this: China is very hierarchical. People in China with a PHD don't actually do much work. That is why they got a PHD in the first place, so they can be respected and boss other people around. Hence they never get any practical experience, they just tell others what to do, and they have little reason to change as individual accomplishment is rarely celebrated in China. This is a behavior that would never work in the west, because companies in competition need their best people working hard to be competitive, else the company fails. China's big tech companies tend to be state backed, so they will never fail.

Now, things may have changed in the intervening 25 years. I would imagine it has, since China is a pseudo-capitalistic system.

But this might help explain why they are so very slow at getting ahead, despite what would seem an insurmountable position of dominance on a qualification 'spec sheet' that just counts the number of graduates / higher degreed STEM engineers for the country as a whole. Especially given they've had that dominance for nearly 30 years now.

The system they operate in simply does not encourage people who can, to expend the effort to do.
 

setx

Distinguished
Dec 10, 2014
226
150
18,760
If it's free and fair (i.e. no "dumping" is involved). "Dumping" is the practice of selling below-cost (usually supported by government subsidies), for the purpose of driving competitors out of business and cornering the market. Then, prices can rise above what would've been profitalbe for the now-defunct competitors. In the long run, customers lose, though it seems pretty nice during the "dumping" phase.
And western big companies do this "free and fair" since when? For example, Intel.
 
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.


International students is a tricky issue, because you really don't want to ban an entire nationality from studying at your universities. I think it just highlights the need to have a functioning system of IP protection & enforcement. I don't know how we get there, but it's clearly what needs to happen.
Agreed. It'll be hard since even if there is a ton of Chinese subsidized students studying at Flemish universities, then going back to China, there isn't anything wrong with that at a surface level. Its only if those students are engaged in stealing the patents and technology from sensitive locations. Definitely don't ban nationalities or even set quotas, just have a very strict security & legal apparatus that can handle the IP protection you mentioned would be a good.

Now, things may have changed in the intervening 25 years. I would imagine it has, since China is a pseudo-capitalistic system.

But this might help explain why they are so very slow at getting ahead, despite what would seem an insurmountable position of dominance on a qualification 'spec sheet' that just counts the number of graduates / higher degreed STEM engineers for the country as a whole. Especially given they've had that dominance for nearly 30 years now.

The system they operate in simply does not encourage people who can, to expend the effort to do.

I think they have gotten significantly better compared to 25 years ago, but still have a ways to go before their higher educational and research systems are on par with western ones. I saw very little of what you described in my undergraduate computer/electrical engineering classes, but from what I get talking to people working in China, the hierarchical system still exists to some degree.
 

RedBear87

Commendable
Dec 1, 2021
153
120
1,760
If it's free and fair (i.e. no "dumping" is involved). "Dumping" is the practice of selling below-cost (usually supported by government subsidies), for the purpose of driving competitors out of business and cornering the market. Then, prices can rise above what would've been profitalbe for the now-defunct competitors. In the long run, customers lose, though it seems pretty nice during the "dumping" phase.
Does the Chips Act qualify as "dumping" or is it only dumping when China does it? Asking for a friend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nookoool
Jul 7, 2022
601
562
1,760
Does the Chips Act qualify as "dumping" or is it only dumping when China does it? Asking for a friend.
Think about it like this. The chips act is simply the US coming to the realization that every other country competing to be the leader of semiconductor manufacturer has and continues to use vast state funding to reach that goal. The US is now accepting the reality that if everyone else is doing it, the only way to maintain market position is to do it as well.
 

jasonelmore

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2008
626
7
18,995
Huawei has a blueprint for an EUV scanner, but does it have a scanner?

Huawei EUV Scanner Patent Suggests Sub-7nm Chips for China : Read more

I bet ASML is kicking themselves right now for releasing their EUV "How it works" video a couple of years ago. In the video, they go over, in great detail I might add, how they were able to build their next generation light source. Water emersion was also in there. They also had full 3d renderings of how the machine mechanically operated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ottonis

kjfatl

Reputable
Apr 15, 2020
181
130
4,760
If it's free and fair (i.e. no "dumping" is involved). "Dumping" is the practice of selling below-cost (usually supported by government subsidies), for the purpose of driving competitors out of business and cornering the market. Then, prices can rise above what would've been profitalbe for the now-defunct competitors. In the long run, customers lose, though it seems pretty nice during the "dumping" phase.
I agree. This is why we need the chips act and will probably need to repeat it again in a year. The chips act levels the playing field. We will also have to subsidize our semiconductor companies so they do not lost money when they have excess capacity. In the same way that we subsidize agriculture so we do not starve when we have a bad year, we need to subsidize critical businesses. The great thing about it is these subsidies pay for themselves in taxes collected from the workers at the where goods are produced.
 

newtechldtech

Notable
Sep 21, 2022
303
113
860
I bet ASML is kicking themselves right now for releasing their EUV "How it works" video a couple of years ago. In the video, they go over, in great detail I might add, how they were able to build their next generation light source. Water emersion was also in there. They also had full 3d renderings of how the machine mechanically operated.

All common knowledge at universities level . not much of a leak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bazzy 505

Bazzy 505

Respectable
Jul 17, 2021
344
124
1,940
a chinese patent, filed in china , 2 things come to mind.
in chinese culture saving face and "cultural harmony" are key to what china is all about , and clock is relly ticking there with china 2024.
Other thing to consider, this could potentionally be another of those patent trolls to be used further down the line in effort to extort
cross license or other form technology transfer at later date. it wouldn't be the first time, just like what they had tried to pull a fast one
on intel in regard to superfin field effect transistor "patent" , Chinese Academy of Sciences typically likes to put hand in that cookie jar
through various proxies like Legend Holdings and such;)
 
Dec 23, 2022
2
1
10
I doubt they will develop any EUV tool soon, or maybe at all - just to correct the article, EUV machines have been in R&D since late 90's so more likely 20+ years of development. and it is the effort of many companies not just ASML (such as Zeiss to name one). What they will likely do, is what the they do best (arguably the best in the world) is to steal and copy other's work.
Why is using knowledge and research from public institutions consdered stealing? Anyone can use it and build on that knowledge and the world benefits. Universities do patent when it has commercial value. Perhaps there is a lack of understanding.
What is wrong with copying. We do it all the time? Cut a paragraph here or there and pasting it onto a piece. So, long as it does not violate patents it is fair game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BogdanH

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador
And western big companies do this "free and fair" since when? For example, Intel.
I'm just explaining what kind of competition is healthy. Not saying anyone is perfect or ranking countries or companies.

Does the Chips Act qualify as "dumping"
Good question. Most, if not all of countries with competitive semiconductor industries seem to have some degree of state support. I'll leave it for the WTO courts to decide what constitutes unfair subsidies.

Think about it like this. The chips act is simply the US coming to the realization that every other country competing to be the leader of semiconductor manufacturer has and continues to use vast state funding to reach that goal. The US is now accepting the reality that if everyone else is doing it, the only way to maintain market position is to do it as well.
It's more than that. It's also about not wanting to be caught being highly-dependent on another country, for its semiconductor supply chain. Especially one in a precarious political situation.

I agree. This is why we need the chips act and will probably need to repeat it again in a year.
The money included in the bill isn't designed to be spent in a single year. I'm not sure of the exact timeframe, but it could easily span 3-5 years.

The chips act levels the playing field.
I would guess that more research grants & investments are probably needed.

The great thing about it is these subsidies pay for themselves in taxes collected from the workers at the where goods are produced.
Not even close to the amount of the subsidies.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: thestryker

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador
I bet ASML is kicking themselves right now for releasing their EUV "How it works" video a couple of years ago. In the video, they go over, in great detail I might add, how they were able to build their next generation light source. Water emersion was also in there. They also had full 3d renderings of how the machine mechanically operated.
You might be right, but most of the details would probably be in their patent filings. Much of the rest can probably be gleaned by inspection, once people get their hands on an example.

Why is using knowledge and research from public institutions consdered stealing?
It's not, unless the research is covered by patents that you don't license.

Universities do patent when it has commercial value.
Sometimes, the research is funded by grants from private institutions who retain IP rights.
 
Last edited:
Why is using knowledge and research from public institutions consdered stealing? ...
It's not, unless the research is covered by patents that you don't license.
I see this "unless" reason as pretty weak (false, actually). The thing is, there's nothing that prevents someone researching and making certain technology (patented or not). Patents only forbids selling patented products (unless they're licensed) -maker however, can use it at will. Which in this case means, it's totally legit if China is using this technique for making and selling final products (chips) -and that's what China wants. In short: patents can't lock some country in "stone age".
Is it a "stolen" technology? Well, at the moment some new invention/technology becomes reality, it's de-facto public knowledge, provided by schools, universities or institutes. And finally, most of the latest technologies are based on previous inventions made by someone else. So, when we say stolen or copied, we should also look in the mirror.

Just sharing my thoughts,
Bogdan
 

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador
there's nothing that prevents someone researching and making certain technology (patented or not). Patents only forbids selling patented products (unless they're licensed) -maker however, can use it at will. Which in this case means, it's totally legit if China is using this technique for making and selling final products (chips)
That's not correct. Business processes can be patented, for instance.

It's typically much easier to address patent infringements through the sale of products, but the infringing device doesn't have to be sold to anyone for the infringement to count.

Is it a "stolen" technology? Well, at the moment some new invention/technology becomes reality, it's de-facto public knowledge, provided by schools, universities or institutes. And finally, most of the latest technologies are based on previous inventions made by someone else.
IP law is a well-developed field. You might have an interesting "take" on something, but if that point of view doesn't align with case law & jurisprudence, then it's worthless.

If something is patented before it becomes common knowledge, then the patent holds. Patents, themselves, are in the public domain. So, once a patent is issued, the techniques & methods it covers do indeed become common knowledge. This is why you can invalidate a patent if you can demonstrate that it duplicates what a lapsed patent already covered.

Just sharing my thoughts,
That's fine, but what one doesn't know about the law can hurt you! That's why companies spend big bucks retaining corporate lawyers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.