ASML is a supplier for one part of the overall process yes, but their core innovation is also somewhat limited. Their EUV technology is actually based on a license from the US DOE (from 1999: https://www.eetimes.com/u-s-gives-ok-to-asml-on-euv-effort/), as part of a consortium of companies that were allowed to benefit from early US R&D into EUV. This is also why the US is able to require ASML to not export EUV machines to China. In my opinion from limited knowledge, being a leader means also being able to change the industry in significant ways. You could argue ASML has contributed to that but I think their dependence on US research indicates they aren’t independently set up to be a leader in this space.
>U.S. Undersecretary of Energy Ernest Moniz said, “if the EUV technology proves viable, ASML has agreed to build a factory in the U.S., similar to its Netherlands facility, as well as to establish an American research and development center. The factory will supply 100 percent of all ASML's sales in the United States.”
Did this actually happen? Does Intel buy ASML machines?
How can a patent from 1999 still provide any leverage? Isn't the lifetime of US patents (or patents in general in most countries) limited to 20 years, so this patent should have expired in 2019?
I can imagine the leverage is 20 years of refining their technology. Sure, other companies could have invested in developing the technology in the last 5 years, and start selling or using it in 2019, but I assume it takes a lot of refinement to have this work nicely.
I'm no expert, but I'd say that patent is only one of many patented inventions needed to turn it into a working product. That is, say the patent expired, anyone could make an EUV laser, but that in itself does not produce nanometer scale transistors.
