|
The trouble with technology conferences and it’s not just me! |
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2006 at 06:07 PM |
There seems to be a not so subtle trend developing at major semiconductor technology conferences that is diluting the effectiveness of such events. On the one side, events such as IEDM and SPIE Microlithography have papers presented that do not have the data to back up claims given. This has become a real problem at the IEDM conference held last December as company after company withheld the "real" data that could give a better insight into actual process developments that company was making.
The rule of thumb seems to be to provide as little as possible, but this makes such events less attractive for attendees and the trade press to attend. Non disclosure legal mumbo jumbo is starting to affect technology conferences to the degree that unless conference organizers get to grips with this problem the problem will kill the events in due course!
At SPIE this year another trend has been picking up speed. Many more presentations than previous years were no more than sales pitches for a given product or service. Little if any technical insight or project comparison work for example was given. On one side, that can actually be useful, but this is not the core part of such billed events and no differentiation is given to the attendees to know that in a given session they will hear sales pitches.
It is interesting to note that it wasn't just journalist bemoaning lack of transparency at technical conferences. At his new website www.lithoguru.com Chris Mack ran a daily dairy during SPIE last week and highlighted the problem of lack of data to back up presentations when he felt the need to highlight in his mind the "worst paper award."
The fact that a highly respected expert in the field should openly comment about such issues means that things need to be tightened up. I think it is quite easy to do if the organizers have the will to apply it. Simply put and I admit this point was covered by Chris in his diary, is that presentations are only allowed that show the data correctly. If they don't they don't get to do it again!
The pressure though will come when organizers tell the big boys such as Intel, to toe the line. Many obviously use the big names to help pull in the punters but that soon backfires when those invited or keynote papers fail to provide anything of substance.
Talking of substance, I was bemused how IBM got front page news coverage in places such as the New York Times last week over a lithography story that has yet to be proven in production and may never actually be adopted by the industry. I refer to news about high index fluids and a couple of SEM images showing line-widths at the 30nm node. Shock horror, but I did find it bizarre that mainstream press should think this was something really special. The write-ups were very naive and I felt quite embarrassed when I read them.
I have mentioned before in this blog that much of what comes out of IBM, after the low-k catastrophe should be treated with the utmost caution, something the FT took note of a few years ago, but there seems a lot more yet to learn the lesson. This new one was a classic that followed quickly in the footsteps of a press release from Rochestor Institute of Technology about evanescent immersion lithography. Again the less informed press jumped on the poorly or cleverly worded document that actually didn't tell you anything at all! I sat in on the presentation during SPIE and can only say that if this technology has any use it is exactly where it needs to be and this in Universities. The lack of real data coupled with the poorly constructed and presented work never got past first base with me and those around me.
|
Blogs 
