Abstract Preview

Here is the abstract you requested from the MIL_2010 technical program page. This is the original abstract submitted by the author. Any changes to the technical content of the final manuscript published by IMAPS or the presentation that is given during the event is done by the author, not IMAPS.

Considering Counterfeits - Evaluating Anti-Counterfeit Partners and Strategies with Business Fundamentals
Keywords: Counterfeit, Risk-Mitigation, Business
The most egregious problem with counterfeits does not stem from the part itself, or the counterfeit manufacturer, but in the damage it does to global markets- counterfeits strip away the fundamental trust that holds up all commerce by destroying businesses ability to trust one other. Seen in this light counterfeits do not merely threaten a company's bottom line but everyone's ability to do business at all. Therefore, since counterfeit avoidance is really a business problem that arises from a lack of trust, counterfeiting is best fought by first and foremost re-injecting trust into markets, as opposed to the traditional approach of injecting trust into inventories. Fortunately trust is not just the goal, nor a helpful way to view the problem, but it can form the basis for a quantifiable metric for evaluating or optimizing the various anti-counterfeit approaches. When used as a yardstick for approving businesses, trust allows us to achieve the optimum solution of minimizing our counterfeit purchases by differentiating good parts vendors from bad ones, resulting in long term fruitful partnerships that pay dividends in being able to trust a business's entire line of product. This begs the question, "Who is trustworthy, and how do we know?" Five categories will be examined and explained for evaluating the level of trustworthiness in a business: Compatibility, which examines how they make money; Attitude, which indicates how dedicated they are to anti-counterfeiting; Liability, what do they have at risk should they sell counterfeits; Collateral, which measures the confidence they have in their product; and Exposure, the likelihood they will order or sell counterfeits. Real world policies and examples will be examined using these categories to prove the value of this methodology.
Philip Comer,
McClellan , CA

  • Amkor
  • ASE
  • Canon
  • EMD Performance Materials
  • Honeywell
  • Indium
  • Kester
  • Kyocera America
  • Master Bond
  • Micro Systems Technologies
  • MRSI
  • Palomar
  • Plexus
  • Promex
  • Qualcomm
  • Quik-Pak
  • Raytheon
  • Specialty Coating Systems