Chinese semiconductor industry

Status
Not open for further replies.

tokenanalyst

Brigadier
Registered Member
So, I think the main difference here is that if ASML is able to de-americanize, then it can sell to Chinese customers as it please. It can a

So, ASML will just need to de-americanize. That's up to them to do
I could be that is not entirely possible for ASML to de-americanize without a clean design,, that implies removing code and redesigning parts made by their US nationals personal, that is a hard task, for example their overlay metrology system compromise a lot of different technologies, some were designed in a European university, some in the US and even some in China. They will have to start with a clean design inside China and use as much Chinese parts as possible. Ironically I think LAM and AMAT will have more easier time removing US parts and code.

Could be interesting if China retaliate with their own FDPR to ASML and others for preventing them exporting to the US
It's not a rookie mistake.

Fact is SMEE Arfi scanners is not in HVM anywhere and likely won't be a for a year.

His statement is entirely accurate from point of view of an investor
I think he was referring to the fact that SMEE is not promoting their machines for sales and the one who are promoting are no near the level of ASML. So they are not competing for sales with ASML... for now. So yes he is accurate from an investor point of view.
 

hvpc

Junior Member
Registered Member
There is a lot of collaboration in very important R&D and semiconductor production that you don't see even in the Chinese semiconductor media and new institutions as important as the Shanghai ICRD that don't even have a webpage, just a name reference in a listing and a lot of patents with this obscure institution name on it.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
You could find info on them via HuaHong or their annual report.

ICRD's website:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
The Dylan Patel article says there are massive loopholes in the 1980i export controls. This aligns very well with ASML CEO saying certain fabs are affected, only 10-15% of revenue.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

But Only For “Advanced” Fabs
The majority of these restrictions only target “Advanced” fabs which is a bit of a loophole as most fabs will not be classified as advanced. A fab can be built under the pretense it is mature, then turn around and become an “advanced fab”, for example with CXMT.

Due to the loophole, this means that ASML’s newest TWINSCAN NXT:1980Di and Fi series of immersion tools can still be shipped to mature node customers. Furthermore, firms like SMIC can continue to receive these tools at all fabs besides SN1 and SN2, where their 7nm is being fabricated. We believe this is much too lenient, as motivated players can certainly transfer tools. China should be able to service all of these tools domestically within the next 2 years as well.

Beyond the “advanced fabs” loophole, some of the most critical technologies such as hybrid bonding, copackaged optics, TSV formation, and DRAM manufacturing are still left wide open.

Commentary: can y'all stop hyperventilating now? US isn't all powerful, and what it declares and what's actually enforced/implemented is two worlds apart.

The kicker:
In general, the new US restrictions have been updated to harmonize with the Japanese rules (we note that sometimes the US rules are even word for word copies of translations of the Japanese rules!)
You mean the Japanese rules that
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
says is far more relaxed than US export controls (no presumption of denial, licenses routinely approved except for military and defense end uses). How convenient that restrictions are getting even more diluted and "harmonized" to a weaker standard, full of loopholes huh.

A Japanese official told Nikkei Asia that Japan does not have the authority to ban shipment to any specific country, and the new export controls it introduced are "a checklist, not a ban list."

"If it is not for military or defense uses, it's likely that we will grant licenses. In fact, many licenses have already been granted," the official said
.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Harmonization from a position of strength indeed. The devil is in the details, don't take what headlines say at face-value. There is so much sensationalism and misinformation to save face from US side.
 

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
My reservations with the line of thinking that @tphuang has expressed, is that I believe that the US will find it very easy to use political pressure to actively prevent the European nations to develop de-Americanized products to begin with, let alone sell them.

The real lever of power being applied which prevents nations from selling their wares, isn't that certain products have a certain percentage of US IP or US technology (that's just a formality), but rather those nation's geopolitical relationship (i.e.: geopolitical vulnerability) with the US.
The US can set the percentage of "US technology/IP" of XYZ product to any level they want -- including to 0%, and they can still apply geopolitical power and pressure to nations to prevent them from selling specific products if they feel giving China access to said products would be detrimental to US geostrategic interests.
The US has shown it is willing to make extra-territorial laws for transactions that do not involve the US in any form, so this really would not be a big step forwards at all.

So, I think a more likely outcome for semiconductor and semiconductor-related equipment and technologies will be more akin to the ban on selling military equipment to China -- a wide spanning arms embargo that the US and its dependents all voluntarily ascribe to and where even the idea of selling such equipment to China results in condemnation and dog-piling onto the group which does so.
I could easily imagine the US making a law whereby they are able to impose sanctions/threaten geopolitical relationships with any nation (including/especially its allies) that has any companies under their jurisdiction that sell China semiconductor industry related equipment -- if anything, this is just one of the logical outcomes of the current US trend, and this isn't even the most extreme or severe potential outcome of the US trajectory.

The only thing which may prevent such outcomes, is if the industries in Europe and other nations like Japan actively lobby their own governments... But I think US pressure will be impossible to resist against, so that the governments in question will have to be forced to choose between their entire relationship with the US (and the US security/geopolitical structure overall) versus selling China domestic/de-Americanized semiconductor products, and I suspect they will not choose the latter.


In the long term, the only path forwards for China is to domesticate the entire, full tech stack, and/or to have parts of the tech stack with nations that are not geopolitically aligned with the US or geopolitically vulnerable from US pressure... but of course we all knew that.

That said, I'm sure there may be a time period in the future whereby some European companies can develop de-Americanized products and be able to sell China those products before the US makes laws and carries out pressure to stop them from selling de-Americanized products... but it's also possible that the US government seeks to go ahead of the curve and puts in legislation and applies pressure before European companies can even finish developing de-Americanized products, to pre-empt any equipment from reaching China at all.
I have been saying this for several years now. That China must be able to produce any good that is worth producing at good quality, not just in the semiconductor and IC chip sector but all sectors, having the entire supply chain for producing such goods within China, because the United States might threaten other countries to prevent them from selling goods to China that the United States does not want them to. The United States has the ability to successfully threaten most countries of the world in that regard.
 

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
I don't think we need to know the exact number of ASML NXT2xxxx machines they will receive, but based on the much greater % of China market revenue for ASML in Q3 & probably part of Q2/Q4, they clearly delivered a lot of expensive ones. Enough for whatever expansion plans SMIC has for the next few years.

So we may have question of what to do about SMIC's mature process like 28/40nm, since they badly need to expand there too.

Based on what I heard before and please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it's probably easier for a new SMEE Arfi scanner to do trial production & achieve satisfactory yield on 40nm process vs 28nm. I assume they've also stocked up 1970 & 1965 at Jingcheng & Shenzhen fabs during this time.

So, I just don't see it makes sense to speculate what Dutch govt might do in 1 or 2 years. More important is what ASML actually can ship to China right now and to which fabs. And whether or not it can replace American parts.

As discussed with the Japan sanctions, they don't have anything in their law like what you see with what BIS controls. They've already granted licenses. Assuming that they will have same type of sanctions as US govt is just not reaonable

None of this is to say validation of domestic equipment should slow down, but it is okay to continue to use foreign equipments. And we should expect that they do that
Just make sure that you have alternatives that can replace any foreign equipment just in case that equipment is prevented from being sold to China.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Why does US govt still bother with negotiating with Dutch then? Why go through this trouble of lowering us ip to 0% then? Why hasn't US govt sanctioned Japanese or Dutch govt for granting licenses for equipment sales to China market then?

It's one thing to just sanction Iran, but quite a different issue to sanction a firm like ASML, which America also needs access to. Despite what people think here, America is not all powerful in what it can do.

Could they eventually force the Dutch to agree to requiring licenses for 1980i? Sure.

But we are not there yet. And from my conversation with Paul Triolo, Dutch would not agree to that.

But I'm sure people on this forum know more than someone who actually talks to us officials that have been discussing things with Dutch govt
I respect Paul and I’m not saying you’re wrong here but officials who insist they would never sign up for something sign up for them all the time when the political conditions are right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top