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
Huawei EUV Scanner Patent Suggests Sub-7nm Chips for China : Read more
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.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.
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 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."
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.Competition is a good thing.
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.universities make lots of money from foreign students, so I don't see that happening.
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:
And western big companies do this "free and fair" since when? For example, Intel.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.
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.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.
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.
Does the Chips Act qualify as "dumping" or is it only dumping when China does it? Asking for a friend.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.
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.Does the Chips Act qualify as "dumping" or is it only dumping when China does it? Asking for a friend.
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 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.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 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.
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.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.
Also, let us not speculate too much into such news. It's a bit naive to think that AMSL releases promotional video without rigourous vetting. AMSL has potential competitors other than China.All common knowledge at universities level . not much of a leak.
I'm just explaining what kind of competition is healthy. Not saying anyone is perfect or ranking countries or companies.And western big companies do this "free and fair" since when? For example, Intel.
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.Does the Chips Act qualify as "dumping"
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.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.
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.I agree. This is why we need the chips act and will probably need to repeat it again in a year.
I would guess that more research grants & investments are probably needed.The chips act levels the playing field.
Not even close to the amount of the subsidies.The great thing about it is these subsidies pay for themselves in taxes collected from the workers at the where goods are produced.
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.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.
It's not, unless the research is covered by patents that you don't license.Why is using knowledge and research from public institutions consdered stealing?
Sometimes, the research is funded by grants from private institutions who retain IP rights.Universities do patent when it has commercial value.
Why is using knowledge and research from public institutions consdered stealing? ...
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".It's not, unless the research is covered by patents that you don't license.
That's not correct. Business processes can be patented, for instance.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)
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.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.
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.Just sharing my thoughts,