[Logophile]

So without the Diffraction integral and determining the spatial components that comes to focus at the focal plane(Fourier Optics), there would be no lithogrpahy. This whole field was characterized to death a 2 centuries ago. The solid theoretical framework enabled large scale integration.

So the theory was fully developed 200 years ago? That was long before the National Science Foundation was created. How did Fourier manage without a government grant?

If you are saying that a sound theoretical foundation is important for developing technology, I will not disagree with you. (Although I would point out that the development of the technology sometimes precedes the development of the theory.) But that does not mean that tax money is required to do theoretical research.

[raj bhatia]

My point about theory was to show that without it, not too many useful semiconductor devices would see the light of day. Fourier thrived under patronage from the French govt. The diffraction integral had no practical use up until it was used for lithogrpahy. No private entity would fund science that has no possibility to be used in the near future. A classic popular example is NASA. But without govt. support, there would be little basic science. We are seeing this in our own time. All the electronic devices today are clever engineering tricks resting on science developed in the earlier half of the century. The comparison to IBM is deeply flawed. IBM had a monopoly in high performance computing till a decade ago. As with every monopoly(Bell labs under AT & T is the best example), they guzzled dollars into basic science without a second thought. The payoff came decades later and most of the patent income this article cites probably comesfrom patents filed on the slightly modified basic science. No private company is in a position to guzzle zillions on basic science today without an immediate payoff.