The SPIE Advanced Lithography Symposium – Day 1

I’ll begin on a serious note. This past year saw the passing of a great lithographer and good friend, Jeff Byers. His tragic death in November (due to injuries sustained in an auto accident) is still a shock to me. So I’m starting a viral campaign: anyone who feels a need to take a moment to honor Jeff’s memory, let’s meet at Gordon Biersch on Thursday, and at 9 pm raise a glass for him. I think he would have done the same for me.

The Symposium began with the awards before the plenary talks. The Frits Zernike prize was awarded to Martin van den Brink of ASML (way to go, Martin!), followed by the promotion of a record 8 lithographers to the rank of SPIE fellow. There were 21 lithography fellows before, so this is a big increase.

All three plenary talks were reasonably good – something that rarely happens. Here are my favorite quotes:

“ Lithography choices are critical and dangerous” – Mark Durcan, Micron
“Shrink is good.” – Martin van den Brink, ASML
“Designers need freedom from choice.” – Andrew Kahng, UC San Diego

With the start of regular talks, the exercise began. I raced back and forth between the resist and metrology sessions all day – probably 200 yards apart. My two big take-aways for the day: 1) third-generation high-index fluids (n > 1.8) may never have low enough absorption, and 2) metrology folks my know how to build metrology tools, but their analysis of data is relatively crude (and they are proud of it).

During the resist session, Ralph Dammel made a very nice tribute to Jeff Byers just before a paper in which Jeff was a co-author. Thank you, Ralph.

The Monday evening poster session was a mess as always. Too many people in a too-small space meant it was virtually impossible to visit even a small fraction of the posters. But as an experienced poster maven, I was prepared. I went through the posters an hour before the session opened and just dropped my card at any poster that looked interesting. I’ll read the papers when the authors email them too me. Then the poster session became a social event – something it works well as.

The SPIE Advanced Lithography Symposium – Day 0

It’s that time of year again – the SPIE Advanced Lithography Symposium in sunny San Jose, California (so far, it’s been raining constantly since I arrived). Attendance is expected to be about 4,000 again this year, with about 700 papers in five parallel conferences, and over 82,000 bottles of beer consumed (all right, I made that last number up).

As usual, I plan to blog each day about my impressions of the conference. It’s Sunday night, and I just finished teaching an 8 hour class (something I’ve been doing here for over 15 years) as a rolling start to the symposium. So it is with both tired feet and a sore voice that I’ll start off the conference tomorrow by attending the plenary session.

And I’m feeling nostalgic this year. In February of 1983 I started my first job in semiconductor lithography. Now it is 25 years later, and yes, I am feeling just a little bit older, a little bit wiser, and more than a little bit self-absorbed (if you don’t believe me, just check out my website). What I don’t feel like is finished. There are so many interesting problems to work on in lithography! There is so much work yet to do. My dilemma this year is not much different from my dilemmas of the past – of all the interesting things to work on, which one first?

But nonetheless, I think I’ll take this 25 year anniversary as an opportunity to tell a story: just exactly how did I manage to find myself working in the field of lithography? After all, when I was first told I was going to work on lithography, I had to look up the spelling of the word. My path to where I am now is anything but direct. So, in “installment” form over the next few days, I’ll tell the story of how I become a lithographer.

Two words I do not like

A couple of blog entries ago, I mentioned two words that I like. Now, here are two words that I definitely don’t like: methodology and utilize. Both are examples of word inflation, and I don’t like word inflation. Why use a big word when a small word would work just as well? Utilize means use – there is no difference and, in my opinion, no reason to ever use “utilize”. Whenever I come across a writer or speaker who has no reason to utilize “use”, I am unlikely to pay attention. The abundant use of the word “methodology” is even worse. Methodology is the study of methods, but most people use it incorrectly as a synonym for “method”. (I’m embarrassed to say that I actually used the word “methodology” once in my recent book Fundamental Principles of Optical Lithography – I am anxiously awaiting the second printing so that I can correct my miserable mistake.)

Small words, when conveying the proper meaning, are always more effect at that conveyance. Big words, when used to impress, have the exact opposite effect on me. Trust me – if you utilize this methodology, you can’t go wrong.

Jeff Byers Scholarship Fund

How best to remember Jeff Byers? Several people have asked me what charities would be best to donate to in Jeff’s name, and certainly Jeff had some causes that he cared deeply about. But I am very excited about a new scholarship endowment fund set up in Jeff’s name at the University of Texas at Austin through the efforts of Paul Zimmerman and Grant Willson. Below is a letter describing the fund and how to donate to it.

January 20, 2008

Dear Friends of Jeff Byers;

We are all struggling to come to terms with Jeff’s untimely passing on November 4th. Several of us have been discussing ways to serve Jeff’s memory. We have decided that our best idea is to set up the Jeff Byers Memorial Award through an endowment at The University of Texas at Austin. This award will be given annually to the UT Chemistry or Chemical Engineering graduate student that best typifies the qualities exhibited by Jeff during his lifetime. The award will have an academic excellence component and an equally important component based on the candidate’s selflessly helping his peers. We have all experienced Jeff’s generous nature, where he would put himself second to help a friend, student, or a colleague with their work or problem. We no longer can tell him how much we appreciate all he did for us on human and professional levels; however, this award, by small measure, will allow us all to memorialize Jeff’s enduring spirit.

We are hopeful that you will join us with any size contribution you see fit in order to help reach our goal and create a permanent endowment named for Jeff at $25,000. The University of Texas will administer the endowment, and all donations are tax-deductible. The endowment is a sincere commitment to honor Jeff with a very meaningful tribute, and will no doubt be considered prestigious by the students that receive it. The Jeff Byers Memorial Award in Chemistry/Chemical Engineering will forever be a testament to how he was a part of our lives while also providing support for future students in the Departments in perpetuity. This endowment will be used to directly support future generations of graduate students in Jeff’s name, building on his already deep legacy of giving and helping others.

To join us in creating this annual award in Jeff’s memory, checks and pledges can be sent directly to the University at the address below. Checks should be made out to UT Austin, with an important note in the memo field that the gift is “in memory of Jeff Byers,” and mailed to:

Attn: Tim Aronson
College of Natural Sciences, Office of the Dean
The University of Texas
1 University Station G2500
Austin, Texas 78712-0549

Gifts can also be made online at: https://utdirect.utexas.edu/nlogon/vip/ogp.WBX. Select “Natural Sciences” in step 1, and in step 2 write, “in memory of Jeff Byers” in the space provided.

Most importantly, we offer our deepest sympathies for our mutual loss. We also sincerely thank those many of you who already promised some donation to this, which helped motivate us to move forward.

Sincerely,

The Friends and Colleagues of Jeff Byers

Vocabulary

I love the words “somnambulist” and “perambulator”. They are superb – sublime, even. I don’t know what they mean, but I still love them. I have looked them up many times, mid-sentence in a book by Gunter Grass or George Orwell, but I always forget their meaning. Nevertheless, whenever I read these words I immediately suspect the author of genius. Friedrich Nietzsche once said that all great ideas occur while walking (which just means that he must have spent a lot of time sitting down). While I walk a lot, I don’t have many great ideas. I am happy, though, when on a walk, to simply reflect on these words.

Medical Malpractice and the Cost of Health Care

I’ve heard this complaint from doctors before, often echoed by Republican politicians: Growing medical malpractice jury awards are causing malpractice insurance rates to skyrocket, resulting in higher medical costs for everyone. I remember a recent speech by President Bush where he said the most important thing we can do to control medical costs is tort reform.

Really? I’ve always wondered how much truth there was to this malpractice hype, so I did what I usually do – take the macroeconomic view. A bit of research (thank you, Google) was all that was required to find out that in 2003 (the last year I found any data) malpractice premiums in the US totaled about $10B. That same year, the US spent about $1.7 trillion on health care. That makes malpractice insurance costs much less than 1% of health costs. Even if there was some sort of multiplicative effect (doctors practicing “defensive medicine”, etc.) there is little chance of total malpractice costs making up more than about 1% of health care costs. And since health care costs are growing at about 6 – 7% per year, there is just no way that controlling malpractice costs could have any noticeable impact on the rising costs of medical care in the US.

While doing this bit of internet research, I found that Tom Baker wrote a book in 2005 called The Medical Malpractice Myth where he makes this same basic argument. I think it is very important to look at how Americans can better control health spending. But harping on malpractice insurance just keeps us from focusing on a solution that might actually help.

Orwell on Nationalism

I’ve just finished reading an essay written by George Orwell called Notes on Nationalism. It is brilliant (which is expected – it was written by George Orwell after all). Here is my favorite line: “Political or military commentators, like astrologers, can survive almost any mistake, since their more devoted followers do not look to them for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulation of nationalistic loyalties.” And this was written in 1945! He could have been taking about any (or all) of the talking-head commentators on TV or talk radio today. Some things never change.

Another Dialog on Social Security

And now to the core of our debate on Social Security. With sufficient prodding, my conservative friends came out with the real reason they are against social security: “Social security is not an ‘insurance’ program, it is an entitlement program.” To a conservative, “entitlement” signifies everything that is wrong with America: government programs that encourage bad behavior because people are not forced to live with the consequences of their bad decisions.

Certainly, any program that encourages bad behavior, or incentivizes bad decisions, is misguided. But is that really what Social Security does? Are the 40% of retirees that rely on Social Security to survive really just a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings on the government dole, laughing all the way to the bank while real, hard working Americans suffer to pay for their vices? The image is ludicrous. The problem with this cartoonish characterization of “entitlement” programs is that it makes a very significant (and self-serving) logical fallacy: that the outcomes in one’s life are solely a result of the choices one makes.

There are three predominant factors that impact outcomes in life: one’s natural abilities, the effort and choices one makes, and the circumstances of one’s life that are outside of one’s control. Is it right to blame someone for lack of natural ability, or bad luck? There are plenty of people that have worked harder in their life than me and have barely gotten by. The formula that poor = lazy is so full of exceptions that it is more likely an exception to the rule that poor = hard work.

[So why is this “entitlement” logical fallacy self-serving? People who are successful in life want to take credit for their own success.]

Of course, the liberals have their own entitlement fallacy: people’s failures are predominantly a result of a life stacked up against them. Like the conservative entitlement fallacy, it simplifies the complex reality of consequences to the point of cartoonish caricature: the rich aligned together in a vast conspiracy to keep the poor down.

But my opinions as to the value of Social Security go beyond the simple statement that the vast majority of people that receive Social Security are not being rewarded for bad decisions. Consider the man (or woman) who really did make bad decisions throughout his life – never considering what it would take to survive at 70. Suppose he now has reached that age without friends or family able to help him, and without the means to help himself. Some people may be OK with watching him slowly starve to death, or die from lack of simple, basic medical care. I am not.

I believe that every human being has intrinsic value independent of how much that person contributes to a market economy. This belief alone is enough to justify a “safety net” social policy – providing a collection of programs that work to prevent death due to extreme poverty. Social Security is one such program – and arguable an exceptionally successful one. For those opposed to Social Security on philosophical grounds, don’t kid yourself: without it, many people will die, old and desperate.

Optics Limericks

A few weeks back I posted an optics limerick that a friend had recited for me. I think that post received more comments (in the form of other limericks) than any other blog posting I have made. Well, for all of you limerick-loving nerds out there, here are some collections of optics limericks from a 1977 contest held by Optics News:

http://www.osa-opn.org/Blog/post/Optics-Limericks.aspx

http://www.osa-opn.org/Blog/post/More-Optics-Limericks.aspx

Now, thirty years later, Optics and Photonics News is holding another optics limerick contest. Send your entries to Christina Folz at opn@osa.org.

Am I a Libertarian?

In conversation, I mentioned to someone that I considered myself a libertarian. He immediately (and rightly) challenged me to explain what I meant by that, since many politicians whose policies I despise also embrace that label. I decided that the best way to answer the question was on the personal level. The result is a short essay that I have just posted: Am I a Libertarian?

Musings of a Gentleman Scientist