Monthly Archives: September 2004

Click here to enlarge image

Sept. 27, 2004 – The National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded a first-of-its-kind grant to a Northwestern University-led team to train teachers in nanotechnology and help them develop programs for middle and high schools.

“This is different from previous (NSF-funded) centers, which focus on research but have also done part-time outreach activity,” said Mike Roco, senior nanotech adviser at NSF and an architect of the National Nanotechnology Initiative.

Click here to enlarge image

NSF this week is expected to officially announce the five-year, $15-million award to Robert Chang, a professor in Northwestern’s Department of Materials Science and Engineering. He is the lead investigator on the proposal selected for the Nanotechnology Center for Learning and Teaching, in partnership with Purdue University, University of Michigan, and the University of Illinois campuses in Chicago and Urbana-Champaign.

The goal, government officials say, is to create an information clearinghouse that not only develops new materials for schools, but also trains teachers through specific doctorate programs and short-term courses so they can introduce nanoscale science and engineering to students in grades 7-12. They believe it’s the first nano-related program of its kind to serve that group.

“Our main goal was, first of all, to bring the excitement of science and nanotech earlier as a unifying approach for other disciplines,” said Roco. “Secondly, we tried to develop the pipeline needed for future nanotech workers in the U.S. … We have outstanding research, but don’t have nanotech workers to do this.”

Roco said Chang has experience working with middle and high schools during the past decade by leading the NSF-supported Materials World Modules program, which produces content based on topics in materials science. The effort has created connections across disciplines, including biology, chemistry, physics and engineering.

Northwestern’s proposal is “not focused on a few top universities,” according to Roco, who said it provides in-kind support and seeks input from other institutions, such as the U.S. Military Academy West Point and Argonne National Laboratory. The proposal is also working with colleges and universities with a high number of minority students including Morehouse College, University of Texas at El Paso, Hampton College, Fisk University, and Alabama A&M University.

Chang said he envisions a program that will provide professional training and degree programs, as well as a Web-based network where students can perform visualization, simulation and remote-control of nano equipment. Plans also include an online library of course content and research galleries.

Although the program will be much broader and the interactions more complex than the Materials World Modules, Chang said the new center will still be based on the same ideas.

“Our approach with our content is to relay concepts into relevant daily activities, which includes design of products,” he said. “This is the biggest challenge of my life … because this program supposed to … improve science education in the U.S. That’s the bottom line.”

The center’s model serves as a foundation for several others in the works: nanotechnology in society, hierarchical nanomanufacturing and science museums. All seek to share information with other centers, academic institutions and even the general public.

“The idea to have a broader impact than on a single school or single region,” Roco said. “The new concept is more than information; it’s making available the results.”

Sept. 28, 2004 – Honeywell International Inc. and SiOptical Inc. announced Friday that they will develop MEMS-based components for next-generation communication networks for military and commercial use. The companies will work together to produce two technologies for faster, better performing communications networks by 2006.

Honeywell will provide its expertise in silicon-on-insulator and optical MEMS technologies, while SiOptical will share its intellectual property and engineering design capabilities. The companies estimate they will offer a tool for improving high-speed servers in communications networks by the end of 2005, and will have a platform for opto-electronic processing and communications networking in 2006.

Honeywell is a diversified technology company headquartered in Morristown, N.J. SiOptical is an integrated optics and electronics startup based in Allentown, Penn.

The Food and Drug Administration proposed a regulation today to further improve the safety of shell eggs on the farm. When implemented, the production changes defined by the regulation will significantly reduce the number of illness caused by eggs contaminated with Salmonella Enteritidis (SE).

An estimated 118,000 illnesses per year are caused by consumption of SE-contaminated eggs. If an individual eats an SE-contaminated egg that is not fully cooked the individual may suffer mild to severe gastrointestinal illness, short term or chronic arthritis, or death.

“The implementation of the provisions of this rule would reduce the number of SE-related illnesses by 33,500 and is a major step in realizing our public health goal of a 50% reduction in all salmonellosis and a 50% reduction in SE outbreaks by 2010,” said Acting Commissioner Dr. Lester M. Crawford. “Today’s action builds upon the safe consumer handling labeling and egg refrigeration and retail rule of 2000.”

The proposed regulation would require implementation of SE prevention measures for all egg producers with 3,000 or more laying hens that produce shell eggs for retail sale and do not process their eggs with a treatment, such as pasteurization, to ensure their safety. The proposed rule’s SE prevention measures include:

Provisions for procurement of chicks and pullets
A biosecurity program
A pest and rodent control program
Cleaning and disinfection of poultry houses that have had an environmental sample or egg test positive for SE
Refrigerated storage of eggs at the farm
Producer testing of the environment for SE in poultry houses–if the environmental test is positive, FDA proposes that egg testing for SE be undertaken, and that, if the test is positive, the eggs be diverted from the table egg market
Identification of a person responsible for SE prevention at each farm

Through these proposed measures, FDA believes SE prevalence will be reduced in the poultry house environment and consequently in the eggs themselves. Most SE contamination of eggs is a result of SE infection in the laying hen’s reproductive tract, known as transovarian contamination). The proposed prevention measures are designed to reduce the likelihood of transovarian contamination.

To fully implement this proposed rule will cost an estimated $82 million annually for the more than 4,100 farms that have 3,000 or more hens. The actual cost will vary with the number of poultry houses and layers under production and will range from a low of 19 cents per layer to $1.00 per layer per year.

While today’s proposal focuses primarily on the farm, FDA is aware of illnesses and outbreaks associated with serving undercooked eggs at retail establishments. Therefore, FDA is soliciting comment on whether to propose potential retail establishment requirements to address their concern.

The proposed rule is part of a joint and coordinated strategy by FDA and the Food Safety Inspection Service (USDA) to more effectively deal with egg safety for both shell eggs and egg products. FDA and FSIS will continue to work closely together to ensure that our egg safety measures are consistent, coordinated and complementary.

A comment period of 90 days will be provided on the proposal. Written comments can be submitted to FDA at: Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers lane, Room 1061, Rockville, MD 20852 . It is important to include docket numbers 1996P-0418, 1997P-0197, 1998P-0203, and 2000N-0504 and RIN Number 0910-AC14.

September 27, 2004 – Novellus Systems Inc. and Applied Materials Inc. have signed an agreement that settles all pending patent infringement claims between the companies while reducing the prospect of future infringement lawsuits, according to statements from both companies.

Key terms of the agreement limit both parties’ ability to sue each other, each other’s customers, and in some instances, suppliers and distributors, for patent infringement in specific technology areas. For existing products, the covenant is binding for five years; for new products, the period is two years, and will be automatically extended for one additional year under certain circumstances.

Additional stipulations call for Applied Materials to make an $8 million payment to Novellus, and to release Novellus from all amounts owed or claimed to be owed from a settlement agreement dated May 4, 1997 regarding TEOS thin film deposition (“the TEOS Agreement”). The agreement further provides that the license under the TEOS Agreement is amended to be fully paid and royalty-free, said the Novellus statement.

“This agreement allows Novellus to focus its attention and resources where it matters most – creating value for our customers and shareholders,” said Novellus excecutive VP Wilbert van den Hoek. “We’re especially encouraged by its positive implications for our customers, who will now be able to make equipment purchase decisions on the basis of technical merit and productivity without concern about potential litigation.”

There is no new license of technology in the agreement, and the agreement ends all pending lawsuits between the companies without either party admitting any liability, added the Applied Materials statement.

“This agreement produces a positive result for both companies and demonstrates strong motivation not to infringe each other’s patents,” said Joseph J. Sweeney, group VP, legal affairs and intellectual property. “By putting these legal matters behind us, Applied Materials is able to better focus on customer requirements and to compete in the market based on the merits of our products and technology.”

Additional details of the settlement agreement are disclosed in Novellus’ Form 8-K and Applied Materials’ Form 8-K.

THOUGHTS ON THE NEWS


September 27, 2004

Much More Than Moore

News Analysis by Jeffrey C. Demmin, Advanced Packaging contributing editor

I must admit that the title of this was stolen from Carlo Cognetti of ST Microelectronics, who gave a very interesting keynote talk titled that at the Napa KGD workshop recently.

As usual, the Napa KGD Packaging & Test Workshop was a success, with many interesting talks plus a record attendance this year. (One hopes that the quality and popularity don’t make the event grow to the point that it changes that nature of it, but I’m sure that the organizers are on top of that challenge.)

The workshop started off with that keynote talk by ST Micro’s VP of New Packaging Development, Carlo Cognetti. Dr. Cognetti’s talk was titled “Much More than Moore” &#8212 he was quick to point out that he was referring to Gordon not Michael &#8212 and it had his take on what we can expect in the future of packaging.

The concept reflected in the title is that the progress of Moore’s Law, which is based on advances in integration and miniaturization at the silicon transistor level, can be surpassed by system-in-package technology. We have all heard (and many have participated in) the debate about system-on-chip vs. system-in-package, but it usually SoC that is cited as having better integration capabilities. According to Cognetti, there are two main ways that SiP does better than SoC for integration &#8212 with 3-D packaging and with the capability to integrate “almost anything.”

These are well-known advantages of SiP, but I hadn’t really thought of them as a way to beat Moore’s Law. Conventional density improvements in silicon, though, are stuck in the plane of the silicon wafer. There are certainly some intriguing developments in 3-D wafer processing, but nothing on that front approaches the mainstream usage of 3-D chip- and package-stacking. (Every cell phone today has some kind of stacked chips, for example.) Even if you aren’t using the latest silicon technology, you can still have higher functional density compared to the latest ICs by stacking two or more chips. It takes a lot of sweat in the wafer R&D lab to double the density of the silicon, but accomplishing that 100% increase by stacking a second chip on top is relatively easy these days.

Similarly, it is very difficult to integrate GaAs and silicon functions, for example, on one wafer. There are ways to do it, but the materials engineering and processing complexity are typically prohibitive. System-in-package technology does the job quite nicely, providing yet another capability that enables a leap past Moore’s Law.

Cognetti has plenty more to say, including some information about ST Micro’s packaging business. One interesting point was that while their volumes increased 3X from 1996 to 2003, their packaging headcount increased 50%, and their factor space increased only 20%. The output per person or per square meter obviously grew tremendously, which is an indication of the efficiencies that have been put in place there. I imagine that most IDMs (integrated device manufacturers) have seen similar trends.

Anyway, the quality and insights in Cognetti’s keynote talk did a nice job of kicking off another excellent Napa KGD workshop.

-Jeffrey C. Demmin, contributing editor

Click here to enlarge image

Sept. 27, 2004 – Do you ever wonder what public relations folks really think about every tool or technology they have to promote? Well, they’ll never tell. But you may gain insights — if not a free tip or two — from the small tech PR veterans below. Most received behind-the-scenes help from colleagues.

They ponder questions posed by Small Times’ Jeff Karoub on the challenges of the job and their clients’ biggest needs. The experts even delve into PR’s dark side, including bizarre requests (we’re not spared) and dumb questions (despite what it says in the customer service manual, the latter category exists). Consider the information below on the record and for immediate release.

Click here to enlarge image

Industry veterans interviewed include Tom Breunig, principal, Nova Marketing Communications; Linda Capcara, group manager, Brodeur Worldwide; Melody Haller, president, Antenna Group Inc.; and Vivian Kelly, president, Interprose PR.

What are the top challenges representing these types of companies?

Breunig: Avoiding the stigma of “disruptive” technology. Even if the technology offers great benefits and seems compatible with today’s infrastructure, many potential customers (especially given the current economy) will hold back until they see it’s proven, manufacturable and cost-effective in large volumes.

Clients need to pay close attention to their corporate story and product positioning in order to offer more of a roadmap for customers rather than scary statements about replacement of existing technology. The latter can create a “silent opposition” among engineers whose livelihoods are tied to current techniques.

Capcara: These fall into a few categories:

1. “So, what’s PR?” Some clients don’t always have an informed view about how PR works, especially scientists without business experience. Some assume major business stories can easily happen for companies that have no products and no customers.

2. Boiling it down. Scientists aren’t always the most savvy when it comes to media skills and can sometimes be too forthcoming with information in interviews.

3. The hype patrol. Finding a balance between capitalizing on nanotech “buzz” and not over-hyping the company. Building true credibility for clients within target audiences.

4. Drinking the Kool Aid. Companies sometimes start believing their own hype. See Category 3.

Haller: This is not dotcom PR. Doing PR for emerging technology companies is tremendously complex. To even choose good clients, you have to understand how technologies become integrated into markets. You need to know the technology, its competitors, the venture investment process and public finance markets, how startups make deals with partners and customers, product design, integration and manufacturing.

Oh, and you have to know which journalists are interested in which aspects of this process, this week. And you have to have earned enough respect to get past their bozo filters. Small tech is even more complex because a nanotech platform company can expand into multiple vertical markets.

It is important to properly tune the tension between what small tech companies are actually producing today and how important they could be tomorrow. There is a lot of ignorance and misinformation that has to be respectfully counter-acted. No matter what we say, the financial market may do a tulip-mania thing again because humans do that.

A huge amount of knowledge and skill is required to communicate effectively in the midst of all this. Ironically, startup companies usually don’t want to pay very well for PR because they underestimate what is involved. That can make it difficult for an agency to retain the smartest people.

Kelly: Transitioning nanotech from the laboratory to a business environment can be challenging. The kind of individual with both the technological savvy and the business skills to capably lead and run such companies is not common. And those leaders must become spokespeople who can convey the benefits of their product to, most often, their customer’s customer. A lot of trust must exist between the company executives and its PR agency.

Initially, it was creating awareness outside of the deep-tech communities, helping various industries understand what tiny tech can do for them, how it can make their product faster, better, cheaper. Breaking through the hype of nanotechnology, and making sure their potential customers and media/analyst community understand that it’s not hype, it’s reality.

Customers of nanotech companies sometimes don’t want to publicize what’s in their secret sauce. At a time when the rubber is meeting the road for nanotech, being able to show actual applications is important.

What do they say is their biggest need? What do you perceive as their biggest need?

Breunig: Typically the companies with emerging technology say their biggest need is large partners with whom they can validate their technology commercially, preferably with the partner contributing significant amounts of NRE (non-recurring engineering) money for specific application development.

From our perspective, in looking at the startups and mid-size companies that we work with, the most frequent challenge is getting together a first-rate commercialization team that can engage in customer-driven marketing and strategic account selling while methodically moving past prototyping into manufacturability and volume.

Many MEMS companies have learned this the hard way since the bubble of 2000-2002, but there are still startups out there who are heavy with Ph.D.’s with little commercial experience.

Capcara: What they say: funding, products/product reliability, customers. What we say: customers, products/product reliability, funding.

Haller: Their biggest need is always to gain the attention of potential industry partners/customers, the large, established corporations. PR uses all kinds of media to help the client open its customers’ doors and shorten the sales cycle by creating familiarity in the minds of multiple people in the buy-decision chain.

Secondarily, they may need investment at various points in the company’s life cycle.

Kelly: They say their biggest need is financial stability and customers! We think their biggest need is the same, so it’s critical to integrate their sales, marketing and PR efforts to raise visibility for the company among investors, customers and strategic partners.

All of the planets are coming into alignment for tiny tech — the global economy is good or improving, awareness and understanding is increasing, the early adopters are coming on board, but we’re still not over the hump yet.

Success stories of real, large-volume manufacture and deployments of nanotech into real products are what will set this house afire.

What’s the most bizarre request you’ve received from the media?

Breunig: This one. We tend to operate behind the scenes to keep the focus on the client.

Capcara: Some of our colleagues and clients have been asked (mainly by broadcast journalists) to exaggerate their nanotech angle/relevance to better fit the angle of the journalists’ story. Also, the “grey goo” and other nanotech paranoia questions can get interesting.

Haller: We once received a call from a journalist who, without any background knowledge or research, was just starting to write an article about one of our nanotech clients. His deadline was in three hours.

Kelly: An organization that will, of course, not be named suggested that a nanotech company do a product demo. There are so many things you just cannot say in a situation like that, including, “First, you get out your teeny, tiny tweezers…”

Of course there’s no such thing as a dumb question, but: What’s the dumbest question you’ve asked a client? What’s the dumbest question you’ve been asked by one (this could be a former client or one that never got past the interview stage)?

Breunig: This probably needs to be rephrased to “what dumb question haven’t I asked yet?” I try to ask all the questions I can in order to get a better sense of a company, its true strengths and weaknesses, its track record, and how it is perceived in the marketplace.

But if you want to nail me down, I’d say it’s when I was visiting a French client and asked for a decaf espresso. I’ve never received a more astounded look.

The strangest request we’ve received is from a client who had just received a significant infusion of venture funding but asked if they could “go dark” for several months to create more uncertainty among potential competitors.

Capcara: Not necessarily a “dumb question,” but I think there’s a slight misconception (across PR, media, and sometimes clients) of seeing nanotech as an industry, which can be deceptive. Nanotech companies are still working within traditional industries (biotech, manufacturing, etc.). On the PR side, while I’m sure there have been plenty of “dumb” questions (that’s part of the learning process, right?), nothing is coming to mind.

Haller: We’re supposed to ask our clients the dumb questions so they are prepared when the media asks them. As for the second part, I think client confidentiality applies!

Kelly: The “dumbest” question was perhaps the most wishful question we’ve received. It was something along the lines of “can you give me a fully faceted PR program for $3,000 a month?”

In a moment like that, you may either be dealing with a company that simply can’t afford a PR agency yet or perhaps one that doesn’t understand the value of PR. Either way, we stay friends because you never know.

Nanotech by default is a very technical subject and our customers are at ease talking at a technical level. We have to ask seemingly dumb questions when preparing our spokespeople for interviews with business reporters who are not interested in or don’t need to know the intricate details of the product, but instead want to explore how nanotechnology will impact their readers’ lives or its investment potential.

The overall semiconductor market will grow by 29% this year to $214.1 billion, and then decline in 2005 by 4% to $205.5 billion, according to Bill McClean, president of IC Insights.

(September 30, 2004) Chandler, Ariz.&#8212Amkor Technology Inc. announced that revenues for the third quarter, ended September 30, 2004, are expected to be approximately $480 million, or 3% lower than the second quarter of 2004, compared with prior guidance of flat quarter-over-quarter revenue.

September 24, 2004 – AMD has announced plans for the formation of a Greater China headquarters in Beijing. AMD’s Greater China headquarters will be responsible for all operations in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

According to Karen Guo, corporate VP of AMD, president and general manager of AMD (China) Co. Ltd, this change will help AMD further expand its local partnerships, develop localized products and services, and enhance its technology offerings.

September 24, 2004 – LG.Philips LCD Co. Ltd. has announced that its new sixth-generation TFT-LCD fabrication plant, “P6,” in Gumi, South Korea, began mass production last month. The plant will produce TFT-LCDs (thin-film transistor liquid crystal displays) for large- and wide-screen LCD TVs and desktop monitors.

P6’s focus will be on on 32- , 37-, and 42-inch wide screens for TV applications as well as large and wide PC monitors, such as 17-inch, said the company.

Currently in the first phase of ramp-up, the plant will reach its full-production capacity of 90,000 sheets/month, which represents approximately 250,000 square meters of input glass, by 3Q05.

September 24, 2004 – Cypress Semiconductor Corp. has announced a $2 million plan to expand its year-old semiconductor design center in Hyderabad, India. The center, which has primarily designed network search engines (NSEs) over the past year, will broaden its focus to include next-generation NSEs, 90nm scale logic devices, and systems engineering capabilities.

Cypress’ expansion plans involve the addition of a silicon validation lab, equipment, and engineering talent to support these new functions.

Cypress currently operates 15 design centers across the US, Ireland, Turkey and India. The facility in Hyderabad is Cypress’s second in India, located about 400 miles northeast of its 175-employee Bangalore design center, which specializes in USB chips, SRAMs, framers and clocks. Cypress plans to add 33 engineers to its 17-person Hyderabad team by the end of 2005.