ePedigree Delay a Sign of An Eventual Supply Chain U.N.?

StevenSimske — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:49:00 GMT

I have been remiss in discussing the delay in the California ePedigree until 2015. This has been interpreted as a long-term delay for track and trace and overall product safety. For a nice overview and analysis of the problem, see http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=17793.

However, ePedigree initiatives are underway by the WHO, FDA, EU, AQSIQ (China), GS1 and other standards/regulatory organizations. A full serialization+pedigree requirement may be delayed until 2015, but it is unlikely that ePedigree will not already be in place before then. Recent passing of PRO-IP and Country-of-origin labeling (COOL) legislation in the US indicates that the US,too, will continue with initiatives before 2015.

The delay of California ePedigree legislation, moreover, may be indicative of another passing of the torch. Much as the recent Presidential (and Congressional) election results likely signal a more collaborative, less "independent" US foreign policy, the delay in ePedigree may signal a more collaborative, less independent nation-to-nation legislation in the future.

Will the big players--WHO, FDA, EU, AQSIQ, GS1, ISO, and others--work together to create a reasonable roadmap for product track and trace, pedigree and provenance? In effect, create a "United Nations" for track and trace? I, for one, hope so. With the increasingly convoluted supply chains for virtually all products resulting in chaos during recall, fraud and even normal node-node shipping situations (how many retailers can confidently tell you everywhere a product has been on its way to their shelves?), how long can it be before the legitimate market says, "enough is enough"? Plus, a universal process will reduce confusion, lower cost, and improve response time around the planet.

Is the current combination of counterfeiting, diversion, factory overrun, smuggling, return fraud and other supply chain crime the commerce equivalent of the two World Wars? A series of events so drastic that the set of collective players decides to band together into a United Nations to try to prevent such a meltdown in the future? (I realize the United Nations is by no means perfect--but we have been without nuclear combat for 63 years...). Maybe so. And maybe the delay in the California ePedigree shows that the US, rather than defining the path forward, is willing to work with the rest of the Supply Chain United Nations in formulating the optimum set of requirements moving forward.

-Steve

Are you PRO-IP? Now the US Is

StevenSimske — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:53:00 GMT

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act of 2007 was signed by US President Bush 13 October 2008. The full text of the act can be read at:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_reports&docid=f:hr617.110.pdf

An article on Newsfactor.com (http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Bush-Signs-Tougher-Piracy-Law/story.xhtml?story_id=032002YEMWLC) noted that:

“Intellectual-property [IP] offenders face tougher penalties now…the [PRO-IP] law gives government agencies tools to gather evidence for prosecution of intellectual-property crimes, provides funds to the Department of Justice to better enforce IP-related crimes, and boosts collaboration between agencies seeking to stop piracy. PRO-IP also creates an IP enforcement overseer to provide federal, state and local agencies with tools to enforce IP protection and reduce the number of incidents.”

The Department of Justice has taken a stand against the IP enforcement overseer. And, in my opinion, the bill may be weighted more toward the protection of IP than to the protection of the customers who are victims of counterfeiting.

The figures cited in defending this bill are also not without controversy. I have previously argued that the $250 billion/year (in the US) estimate for addressable counterfeiting is about 150% too high. Still, $100 billion/year is no small amount (if I may use a litotes). But the same people who dislike those color laserjet yellow dots (http://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-tracking-dots) have an opinion on this bill as well: “In addition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation [EFF] has been outspoken about the bill, saying copyright laws often fail to distinguish between commercial counterfeiters and the average person. EFF also said the figures for lost revenue and job loss are ‘cartoonishly large.’"

My own opinion? Intellectual property owners will naturally overestimate the cost of counterfeiting, and EFF-like organizations will naturally underestimate it. Somewhere in-between is the truth. Increasing the penalties for counterfeiting-related deaths is certainly an important step forward. Incursions on privacy are (usually) a step backward.

Cheers,

Steve

Security Printing and Imaging : PRO-IP

ePedigree Delay a Sign of An Eventual Supply Chain U.N.?

Are you PRO-IP? Now the US Is