To add to the discussion, I think a more important aspect is the
illusion of trivial process transfer. One of my pet peeves is that many
e-mails are of the "can you give me the process for depositing/etching
this material" variety and Many users on this newsgroup are working out
of university fabs that for the most part, are using older model
equipment. Anything developed in industry that has any relevant amount
of IP involved is going to have to be done on more recently designed
equipment. So even if someone in industry were to spill the beans and
give out his process, to take a process on a new tool and to try it a
few times on a old tool and make it work, isn't possible. If it is this
easy, there simply isn't any IP worth protecting IMHO.
Last week someone wanted a thin dielectric layer and was told to use
e-beam deposition when the proper response would be, "I don't know
because you haven't said enough about your application or toolset". If
he needs stoichiometric, dense material for etch resistance in some
later processing step, and he doesn't have capability of depositing in
an oxygen backfill, ion beam assisted deposition, or some other means of
increasing the oxygen content of the film, his attempt will fail. Or if
he uses an optical technique to measure deposited film thickness he will
at least get the wrong result. And there are all sorts of implications
wrt adhesion and film stress that are inherent in type of substrate,
substrate cleanliness, deposition rate, etc. that are not even alluded
to.
So my 2 cents are, give out whatever processes you want but don't expect
someone else to solve your problems. Try to understand why your own
process does or does not work.
Rick