"ASML, the largest producer of lithography tools, is based in the Netherlands and does not have to obtain a license from the U.S. government (though some of its products are subject to the Wassenaar Arrangement on export controls)"
Not only that but ASML uses light sources from their US-based division (Cymer, for 248nm, 193nm and EUV) that would certainly require an export license on their own.
A new fab is one thing, but how is the supply chain side of things? Those very high purity silicon ingots and fluorine based chemicals are the major bottleneck, I thought?
"... companies from the USA need to apply for an export license, which runs the risk of being denied ... "
it doesnt run the risk of being denied. It will be looked at with presumption of denial. ASML also is not able to ship anything equipment DUV or EUV. And I think 95% chance thats it. Either this plan is going no where or they are planning to make their own tools, which may actually explain why they gone back to 28 nm.
The 5% is for the unlikely event that China is looking to cut a deal with US to allow this. China technically has the power to bully the US if it chooses to. selling weapons to Iran/Venezuela will get some considerable attention. However I say this is unlikely (5%) because china has not acted this way in the past, and no way of knowing how US will react to such an attempt.
china is trying to reduce their dependence on foreign imports for critical industries, and chips are one of the areas it has identified as a national security interest. This certainly looks like china's going to be pumping money into developing their own chip manufacturing industry so that they aren't at risk of being cutoff from chips (to avoid another Huawei situation).
The Renesas fire may give them an incentive to speed up the build process. Demand for automotive is going to stay high for a while. Is that covered in the "Others" category of wafer revenue?
This sentence is confusing: "Since SMIC is in the U.S. Department of Commerce's Entity List, companies from the USA need to apply for an export license, which runs the risk of being denied even though it's equipment for an older node."
Can someone explain? What is the DoC's Entity List? I gather it's a bad thing, not a good thing, for the listed entity? At first I thought it was a good thing, because it sounded like maybe a *US* Entity classification, where there would be percent stake by US investors or an investment in the US. It reminded me of the US airline ownership regulations. From the comments, I gather that it's a bad list to be on? Did SMIC do something to get on it, like Huawei's alleged espionage activity or enablement?
Then the part about US companies exporting is unclear and unexplained. What companies? And how are they connected to this story or to the preceding sentence about outfitting a fab? You mean suppliers of fab equipment? And exporting to SMIC specifically? The companies that were listed as having applied for export licenses – are they related to SMIC? Do they supply SMIC? What were they applying for? This announcement from SMIC just came out last week, so I don't understand the connection to these suppliers applying for licenses before the announcement.
I thought ASML, a Dutch company, supplied all the litho equipment. Well maybe not for larger nodes? However, the quote about ASML from commenter Arsenica doesn't actually appear in the article. Did it used to be in the article?
you're missing context because you didn't read previous articles about the supply issues. Luckily, you can google it. The Entity List is called just that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity_List
It bans US companies from doing high-tech business with you. Being state-funded by a strategically misaligned country is enough to land on it.
The rest follows as a consequence.
Those companies maybe applied for different fabs, or not, it doesn't matter, if those requests get denied then this won't go forward either.
>I thought ASML, a Dutch company, supplied all the litho equipment.
Just the top stuff. For analog ICs you actually need the "worse" older technology, and there are supply issues with all sorts of ICs at the moment.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
12 Comments
Back to Article
Arsenica - Monday, March 22, 2021 - link
"ASML, the largest producer of lithography tools, is based in the Netherlands and does not have to obtain a license from the U.S. government (though some of its products are subject to the Wassenaar Arrangement on export controls)"Not only that but ASML uses light sources from their US-based division (Cymer, for 248nm, 193nm and EUV) that would certainly require an export license on their own.
HyperText - Monday, March 22, 2021 - link
For DUV products it seems that there is no need for a license, apparently.BenFish - Tuesday, March 23, 2021 - link
Licenses are required, they have got clearance for some devices but not the EUV ones.meacupla - Monday, March 22, 2021 - link
A new fab is one thing, but how is the supply chain side of things?Those very high purity silicon ingots and fluorine based chemicals are the major bottleneck, I thought?
EthiaW - Tuesday, March 23, 2021 - link
For mature nodes they actually have domestic suppliers.Oxford Guy - Monday, March 22, 2021 - link
If you fab it they will come.azfacea - Monday, March 22, 2021 - link
"... companies from the USA need to apply for an export license, which runs the risk of being denied ... "it doesnt run the risk of being denied. It will be looked at with presumption of denial. ASML also is not able to ship anything equipment DUV or EUV. And I think 95% chance thats it. Either this plan is going no where or they are planning to make their own tools, which may actually explain why they gone back to 28 nm.
The 5% is for the unlikely event that China is looking to cut a deal with US to allow this. China technically has the power to bully the US if it chooses to. selling weapons to Iran/Venezuela will get some considerable attention. However I say this is unlikely (5%) because china has not acted this way in the past, and no way of knowing how US will react to such an attempt.
chaose - Monday, March 22, 2021 - link
china is trying to reduce their dependence on foreign imports for critical industries, and chips are one of the areas it has identified as a national security interest. This certainly looks like china's going to be pumping money into developing their own chip manufacturing industry so that they aren't at risk of being cutoff from chips (to avoid another Huawei situation).gizmo23 - Tuesday, March 23, 2021 - link
The Renesas fire may give them an incentive to speed up the build process. Demand for automotive is going to stay high for a while. Is that covered in the "Others" category of wafer revenue?JoeDuarte - Tuesday, March 23, 2021 - link
This sentence is confusing: "Since SMIC is in the U.S. Department of Commerce's Entity List, companies from the USA need to apply for an export license, which runs the risk of being denied even though it's equipment for an older node."Can someone explain? What is the DoC's Entity List? I gather it's a bad thing, not a good thing, for the listed entity? At first I thought it was a good thing, because it sounded like maybe a *US* Entity classification, where there would be percent stake by US investors or an investment in the US. It reminded me of the US airline ownership regulations. From the comments, I gather that it's a bad list to be on? Did SMIC do something to get on it, like Huawei's alleged espionage activity or enablement?
Then the part about US companies exporting is unclear and unexplained. What companies? And how are they connected to this story or to the preceding sentence about outfitting a fab? You mean suppliers of fab equipment? And exporting to SMIC specifically? The companies that were listed as having applied for export licenses – are they related to SMIC? Do they supply SMIC? What were they applying for? This announcement from SMIC just came out last week, so I don't understand the connection to these suppliers applying for licenses before the announcement.
I thought ASML, a Dutch company, supplied all the litho equipment. Well maybe not for larger nodes? However, the quote about ASML from commenter Arsenica doesn't actually appear in the article. Did it used to be in the article?
Murloc - Tuesday, March 23, 2021 - link
you're missing context because you didn't read previous articles about the supply issues.Luckily, you can google it. The Entity List is called just that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity_List
It bans US companies from doing high-tech business with you.
Being state-funded by a strategically misaligned country is enough to land on it.
The rest follows as a consequence.
Those companies maybe applied for different fabs, or not, it doesn't matter, if those requests get denied then this won't go forward either.
>I thought ASML, a Dutch company, supplied all the litho equipment.
Just the top stuff. For analog ICs you actually need the "worse" older technology, and there are supply issues with all sorts of ICs at the moment.
eastcoast_pete - Wednesday, March 24, 2021 - link
Will that fab also put some of the IP to use that was lifted from Micron?