Comments on: New paper published today

By: Bobb Mohondro

Bobb Mohondro — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Hi Chris. It’s been some time and I am looking forward to seeing your opinions. I am also looking forward to you completing your book. This "Life After Optical" issue has certainly been around for a while. Everything has an issue of one sort or another but I believe some collaborative and innovative approach will be found. Any way you look at it though, it isn’t going to be cheap.

By: Pat Murphy

Pat Murphy — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Amen to your outlook on nanoimprint! It seems that even a fraction of the money spent on next-generation optical litho research would be needed to iron out remaining defect issues with imprint and nothing I’ve heard from imprint’s nay-sayers has convinced me otherwise.
Chris, here in the less-restricted areas of cyberspace, would you care to speculate on exactly why imprint is so ignored? Is it a lack of visionaries or am I ignoring a fundamental drawback?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Pat, I don’t believe in conspiracy theories (though it is fun to think that Intel is behind it all), and I do think that most of the people looking at next generation lithography (NGL) choices are pretty smart. Still, I don’t think imprint is getting a fair shake. Why? Probably two reasons. First is inertia – the current NGL program of choice, EUV, hasn’t died yet and most NGLers have thrown their weight behind that effort. They don’t want to give up yet, but they know that their position is precarious enough that they worry about dilution of effort. Second, imprint reminds the old foggies (like me) of contact printing, and how difficult the defect issues were back then. Since those old farts are now in upper management, they are the ones making the money decisions. Of course, there are also the old farts like me who don’t have any money to spend, so we just spout off with our opinions.