The answer to your question on standard for anti-counterfeiting system is yes. Quality and safety of products depends on quality of components used.
This problem is generalized by saying, “counterfeit components” and sought solution becomes too general and will not fit all the devices and their cost. The approach to ICs could be different than for example to tantalum capacitors or resistors. Are there any statistics which parts are the most popular in counterfeit underground?
An interesting article and again we come full circle on counterfeited parts, the issue is not the manufacturers, or technology needed to identify 'fake' components.
Plainly and simply it is the distribution network. No amount of 'anti-fake' technology at the manufactures site is going to cure the issue of counterfeiting.
So you want to 'duplicate' the magic dust?
Simple, get old 'scrap' ic's from the manufacturer, grind them up and introduce them as a % into the manufacturing of the fake parts.(This is already done with plastics)
Only by sorting out the distribution channels can the supply chain and working on the price structure of components ,could the industry be 'cleansed' of counterfeit parts.
But again this cleansing could only be applied to manufacturers that were willing to take part in the program, there are still a multitude of factories that knowingly buy fake parts then supply them onto the market in finished products.
Unfortunately the margins that can be made between supplying the 'real thing' and a counterfeit are just too great, personally I believe that until this is sorted out there is not going to be any 'real' progress.
How would a silver bullet affect the market for semiconductors today?
Good question, let's try to figure this out. So it's to my understanding that we create a dust of fiber that is incorporated into the devices upon production at the fabs. This dust proves the traceability of the product all the way back to the mfr, no matter where the devices end up.
However even with this new technology not all independent distributors have the capacity to x-ray the devices they buy and sell on an hourly basis and I don't think the CM's or EMS' have the capabilities to do that either (especially many of the smaller to medium sized operations).
So here's the other scenario the counterfeited product is promised to not pass through on goodwill. We trust the experience that many of our peers hold as insurance against the risk of receiving and then shipping counterfeit product.
Now please don't get me wrong. One day, some day, everyone will ship counterfeit product at some point in doing business in the semiconductor arena. It's how the electronical component cookie crumbles.The important part is what you do as a member of this community after the fact...
Did you identify the source to the best of your ability, have you notified the community? Have you apologized to your customer, have you created a recovery plan? What are you doing to help stop and eventually eliminate this problem from our community?
Stop blaming the bad guys. Without them we couldn't be good guys. Instead let's start focusing on how the good guys can get better. Dust in chips to prove traceability?I have a funny feeling it would not be that difficult to duplicate the dust. And the problem remains...
I loved the article and look forward to reading more. Commenting more and hearing the communities feedback.
For last couple of years, the growth of electronic industry is more than the expected level and everybody wants to gain from this growth rate. So the local/ small scale industries are targeting to the most popular brands either by imitating the features or producing gadgets with at par design and styles. Big brands are spending about 25 percentages of their total revenues in market research study and innovations. As a result of this innovation, new gadgets with advance features are released to the public market. But at the same time, local manufactures are also trying to gain from this innovation by releasing more or less same type product, with out much investment in R&D. Even in some times, we also may get confused between the original and duplicate, means some of the duplicate gadgets are far-far better than the original brands.
So the duplication process may continue, still the innovation for a new product stops. More over it’s not going to be end in a healthy situation also because the other peoples are trying for their own survival. Still now there was NO any proper mechanism to identify the genuinety of the products. In this scenario we have to think about more innovations in similar field to identify the right product, like copy rights by the publishing house.
Yes, developing standard anti counterfeiting solution would definitely be a good idea. And it would definitely help the business to adopt best practices. Why to invent something thats already invented? Since the electronics supply chain business is huge, its a requirement to be safe and secure. I liked the concept of taggants. But adding hardware, well what exactly would be in the hardware. Because hardware always inclreases the cost and needs high maintenance. But if the security features can increase enormously why not??? Then one has to be aware of the custom issues on airportS since the package whould have additional hardware.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.