Having been in the industry so long (almost as long as Chris), I am impressed more by the numbers (which were usually given), rather than the scale of the plots – often, data were reported in nm to 2 decimal places – arguable how significant those last two digits are, but that is where the action is, now – and will be one factor in whether optical (which includes EUV photons, as pointed out by Winfred Kaiser) will stand or fall against nanoimprint.

I agree about Lieve’s paper, but it was somewhat similar to what all the tool vendors are doing, now – plus we have to also design and provide the knobs for lithographers to use and write papers about!

All toolmaker engineers and scientists put a huge amount of work (most of which goes unpublished, other than in Patents) to arrive at a few papers that management and marketing departments (and graphic designers) have the final say on – so I wouldn’t use the word "Lie" – but I am biased – maybe this could be called toolmaker/lithographer bias 🙂