I do know of one production semiconductor process that uses 200+ scans right off the top of my head, that of making VCSELs. They need a 30-60 pairs of alternating materials to do the mirrors at the top. Each layer takes two scans. Granted it is a special structure, but the results are well worth it for very high speed high data rate comm (>1TB/s). And yes they are SESP at a relatively wide process. They usually have the drive logic adjacent to the VCSEL. Long term they are looking at it to do interchip comm.
Re: Please explain how you now find that SuperMicro -- and Tyan -- are able to supply you with lots of boards
Public pressure was eventually able to get Intel to back off, one fraction of a segment at a time. But my contention is that time to market is quite important in the tech business.
If you don't think so, then how about this - let's just reverse what Intel was doing for the last 5 years, to give AMD the same advantages Intel has (illegally) achieved, after which we'll call it even. So, for the next 5 years, 50% of Intel's CPUs and chipsets will have to be warehoused for 6 months before they can be sold, and the other 50% have to be warehoused for 9 months before they can be sold.
Just apply to Intel the 6 to 9 month delay to availability AMD was forced to operate under, due to Intel's extortion tactics.
You were OK with it when AMD had to operate under those conditions, surely you won't have a problem with Intel taking a turn at operating with the same constraints.
The competition equation in the X86 microprocessor market segment is easy to understand. When AMD has good products and can make them it succeeds. When it under performs in either respect it does not.
That is the straight forward and understandable Intel defense in the antitrust case. A chart of AMD market share over time is all that is needed to prove this point. K7 when you can make it good, Opteron the same and Barcelona fails.
The AMD case involves lots of arm waving, discussion of discounts i.e. lower prices, coop advertising hurts us and more arm waving by economists testifying on abstract theories. Yes, AMD talks about "exclusions" but then it has to explain why even though you can buy an AMD machine at HP and other places, Intel is a monopolist if you can't buy an AMD machine in every manufacturers catalog.
It really gets tough going, when AMD has to explain why Intel should pay coop advertising money to an OEM for advertising AMD's stuff.
This is an imaginary non-issue made up Intel investors as a diversionary smoke screen to cover up Intel's transgressions. AMD isn't asking for Intel advertising money just the right to sell to OEMs without financial bribes stopping them. These are the direct charges being made in every case yet Intel guys ignore this and go off making their own fantasy scenarios as to what's happening.