While attending IEDM 2010 earlier this week, I heard a number of industry experts comment that this year's conference was too academic. Translation: most of the technologies presented would never see the light of day in a fab. Indeed, during the opening day plenary session, it was noted that this year's conference had seen a drop in submissions from industry, while submissions from universities was up.
It seems reasonable that with so much R&D work being done under the auspices of consortia (and surely it will increase as the funding levels needed to get beyond 22nm increase), more papers will be presented by the consortia, and perhaps less presented by sole companies, or small groups. That leaves academia to round out the roster. But with so many different paths to get below 22nm - architecture and materials - maybe this is a perfectly logical development. A bewildering number of pathways might need a large number of research paths to sort everything out. So perhaps it's a good thing.
Please tell us what you think. Was this year's IEDM "too academic," and if so, is this a good trend or troubling? Or maybe this year was just a blip. Or perhaps you think the program is just right. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Debra Vogler, Sr. Technical Editor
debrav@pennwell.com
No comments:
Post a Comment