[geomark]

The article talks about a few things that they call inventions, like making interconnections across what would normally be scribe lines. But I personally worked on wafer scale integration about 25 years ago and we were already doing that. We called it inter-reticle stitching. The technology was ancient back then - 0.5 micron feature size on 4 inch wafers - but the wafer scale techniques are applicable to modern technologies. In particular, developing a yield model that informs your on-chip redundancy choices and designing built-in self test and selection circuitry so that you can yield large chips. The chip we developed was so large that only two would fit on a wafer. We got 50% yield on a line that was far from mature at the time. The company lacked the vision to do anything with what they had developed. To them it was just a chip for which there were few customers. The suits didn't know how to make bank with this methodology that could yield nearly arbitrarily complex chips in nearly any target process.

Edit: There were a number of papers and conference proceedings published back then but not much shows up when searching Google. Here's one discussing the issues and results of field stitching https://fdocuments.in/document/ieee-comput-soc-press-1992-in...

From 1992, so yeah, field stitching is not a recent invention.

[DaniFong]

Great post, but I would like to add that the critical question for whether an invention because a useful innovation is usually not "is this novel" but rather "is there a currently viable project here with people who care about the thing and genuine motivation and persistence and adequate resources."

In other words, "how is this effort new to the universe?"

I would say it's certainly at a different scale and a different time. And we should be super thankful that the commercial interest is such that we can try out new chip designs in a different domain now; you can really imagine a rethink for the kinds of things that are possible once you're really at scale here.