Customs stopped checking out counterfit ICs?
Jon Kirwan
because they were afraid of law suits?
See 2nd to last paragraph in:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15990184?nclick_check=1
Customs used to ask legitimate chipmakers to help it
check out suspected parts. But it stopped that two
years ago, fearing it could be prosecuted for revealing
confidential information about the seller of the parts
to another company. Since then, the association noted,
there has been a "dramatic decrease" in fake-chip
seizures.
...
Part of what I'm curious about is why there wasn't enough
interest by the manufacturers themselves to work out a
suitable approach; why it was that US customs feared a law
suit, in the first place, over issues they saw related to
their prior practice... a worry about which I assume the
industry wasn't completely ignorant of; what credible threat
was actually made, at some point, and by whom. Etc.
Why did things degrade to the point where the US customs felt
they could no longer do this job anymore?
It seems clear that the problem is on the rise, after this
change in policy and practice. Why was it so impossible to
deal with various concerns here?
It doesn't make sense to me.
Jon
Jim Thompson
Makes perfect sense if you're a Democrat politician seeking Chinese
support and funding.
Anyone who still thinks government is "for" the people is a bit of a
fool :-(
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Democrats are best served up prepared as a hash
Otherwise the dogs will refuse to eat them :)
linnix
> So... US customs simply stopped checking out imported parts
> because they were afraid of law suits?
>
> See 2nd to last paragraph in:http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15990184?nclick_check=1
"Because the microprocessors it needed for its F-15 warplanes' flight-
control computer were no longer made by the chips' original
manufacturer, the military obtained them from a broker, only to
discover they were counterfeit,"
This is alarming. What are they using, 8080? They have not been
upgraded?
Richard Henry
It would be interesting to see a technical analysis of the defects in
the counterfeits. They must be close in form and function to the
targeted parts or they wouldn't get past the first factory day (am I
naive to assume that companies still test their products?). Are they
just faking the packaging and logos? Faking the test documentation?
Richard Henry
Jim has apparently lost all interest in technical matters.
Jon Kirwan
On the source side, it is likely to be many different things,
from what I read before. Some of the counterfitting is about
taking cheaper (lower grade) parts and remarking them as
better. For example, perhaps buying cheaper +/-2% Vref parts
and marking them and selling them as +/-0.5% Vref parts. Some
are just dead parts -- I recently saw a case of CPUs that
simply weren't. The best they could be used for is jewelry,
I suppose. And very probably there are even more complex
situations, where perhaps 1/2 of a lot is tainted ... or 10%
of it... or 90% of it... but not all of it. Whatever works
to catch a few more people unaware.
On the receiver side, there are several kinds. There are end
users and there are distributers, like Digikey. Also
stuffing houses. Not everyone validates every shipment and
the interests in doing so vary from shipment receiver to
receiver, anyway. Some get caught unawares because the new
stock doesn't get used until the older stock is used up. Some
find out very soon because they test a few parts right away
upon receiving them. Some find out when they receive and
then test a stuffed board.
It would be interesting to know what the breakdown is and
what is the bigger problems, I suppose. But even knowing
that and working to address the problem areas directly also
means that the counterfitters will then have more
information, too, and will shift their practices to target
areas that aren't getting as much attention. It's going to
be a game, of sorts.
My curiosity is about why it was the case that US customs,
working together with concerned manufacturers (and I have to
believe that legitimate manufacturers _do_ care), failed so
utterly and completely to be able to work out a system that
would meet various legitimate interests and ultimately had to
simply stop doing anything. There must have been _credible_
legal threats in the air in order to force that change and
those making the credible threats must not have been
sufficiently interested in finding an accommodation, for
reasons I have a hard time figuring out.
It would seem to me to be both in the interests of legitimate
outside-the-US manufacturers, as well as inside-the-US
distribution and manufacturers and various electronics
engineers (and on down the line to end users of the final
products), to work out a reasoned approach. It is hard to
imagine why negotiations couldn't arrive at a workable answer
and instead the only answer became a complete breakdown with
nothing left in place to help curb the problem.
Jon
linnix
If I am the enemy, I would design and sell the chips to the USAF.
They work normally most of the time. But in the present of a 543GHz
RF signal, it would drop dead. This would be more effective than say
the neutron bomb.
Michael A. Terrell
You apparently like following Jim around like a scorned, crazed
ex-girlfreind.
--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.
Ecnerwal
Jon Kirwan <jo...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
> There must have been _credible_
> legal threats in the air in order to force that change and
> those making the credible threats must not have been
> sufficiently interested in finding an accommodation, for
> reasons I have a hard time figuring out.
You're making a big mistake in the "taking them at their word"
department, I think. Legal threats (the vaguer, the better) make a fine
red herring when the real reason is perhaps much simpler - any of the
following seem possible:
A: simply that they didn't want to be bothered (time, manpower/etc. wise)
B: are concentrating more on "homeland security" than "giving a #@$&
what fake crap is being shipped in" - looking for bomb materials etc.
and not wanting to look for chips that look like other chips but are not.
C: were not getting enough in fines and fees to make it worth their while
D: were offered too much in paper bags and offshore accounts for it to
be worth their while continuing, since counterfeiting is a nice high
profit business.
--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
Jim Thompson
Richard Henry is a queer, fairy and a leftist weenie... other than
that... :-)
mi...@sushi.com
His brain, which probably was the second thing to go, forgot that the
genius George Dubya Bush pushed for most favored nation status for
China. Oh, let me toss in Mexican truck drivers while I at it. I can't
believe how two guys, Bush and Cheney, could so hate the people of the
United States.
mi...@sushi.com
I saw a few F15 PCBs. Lots of round cans on it. Doesn't build much
confidence, does it?
Some planes get gutted and fitted with new electronics, like the
KC-135, if (big if) there is a program to do this. I snicked a bit
when they were doing the tanker retrofits about a decade ago out at
the Mojave airport, but in hindsight, fixing those old planes won the
war (well so to speak). Who knew Rumsfeld and crew would botch the
tanker follow-on program with their corruption.
mi...@sushi.com
There used to be a few companies that produced essentially obsolete
chips for spares. One still living is
http://www.lansdale.com/
One of the companies I worked at kept the F8 uP going. Or maybe H8.
(Hey, it wasn't my job.) Anyway, some company wanted to orphan the
product on their line and gave us the design.
Micrel, before they had standard products, was just a foundry with a
lot of smelly old processes that some companies used to keep the
spares going.
Richard Henry
wrote:
Following him around? I keep running into his steaming piles of brain
droppings whenever I read this newsgroup.
Richard Henry
Richard Henry
Q.E.D.
Michael A. Terrell
Then man up and get access of a real NNTP server and use a newsreader
to killfile anyone you don't like. That is, if you're able to.
Richard Henry
Jon Kirwan
<MyName...@ReplaceWithMyVices.Com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <8ao786h7dj3k49lp9...@4ax.com>,
> Jon Kirwan <jo...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
>
>> There must have been _credible_
>> legal threats in the air in order to force that change and
>> those making the credible threats must not have been
>> sufficiently interested in finding an accommodation, for
>> reasons I have a hard time figuring out.
>
>You're making a big mistake in the "taking them at their word"
>department, I think. Legal threats (the vaguer, the better) make a fine
>red herring when the real reason is perhaps much simpler - any of the
>following seem possible:
>
>A: simply that they didn't want to be bothered (time, manpower/etc. wise)
Not very believable, in this case.
>B: are concentrating more on "homeland security" than "giving a #@$&
>what fake crap is being shipped in" - looking for bomb materials etc.
>and not wanting to look for chips that look like other chips but are not.
I don't know how they were doing the checking before. The
article mentioned enough to suggest that the process involved
manufacturers and that the problem seemed to be nothing like
what you are suggesting, reading the article closely.
Besides, they appear to have been doing a successful job of
it until they stopped doing it in 2008. Which is well after
the peak of post 9/11 homeland security activities in the US.
No, I don't think that's believable, either.
>C: were not getting enough in fines and fees to make it worth their while
Not a convincing theory to me, in this case.
>D: were offered too much in paper bags and offshore accounts for it to
>be worth their while continuing, since counterfeiting is a nice high
>profit business.
Okay. I think we stop here.
I'll keep wondering, for now.
Jon
Jim Thompson
Please don't feed the fairy. Just killfile him.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
Gee, I didn't know Bush was President in 1996. Maybe he likes cigars, too.
Idiot.
Michael A. Terrell
Yawn. A knuckle usenet dragging troll.
Jim Thompson
RH is a googlegroups fairy :-)
Richard Henry
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:35:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>
>
>
I guess my criticisms of JT's recent odd behavior are hitting home.
Nobody
> So... US customs simply stopped checking out imported parts
> because they were afraid of law suits?
One possibility is that the manufacturers overreached, calling
"counterfeit" on genuine parts being traded through non-approved channels
or even just competing work-alike parts.
I have no idea whether that's at work here, but there are plenty of cases
of law enforcement getting involved in "IP infringement" cases where the
infringement was dubious if not entirely absent.
Richard Henry
Sounds interesting. Do you have some cases in mind you can reference?
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 10:44:27 -0700, Jon Kirwan wrote:
>
>> So... US customs simply stopped checking out imported parts
>> because they were afraid of law suits?
>
>One possibility is that the manufacturers overreached, calling
>"counterfeit" on genuine parts being traded through non-approved channels
>or even just competing work-alike parts.
No, unless the parts have the manufacturer's markings on them they wouldn't be
considered counterfeit, by anyone. If they do (and have not been sold into
the channels by the manufacturer), they are, no matter how well they might
work. Simple.
>I have no idea whether that's at work here, but there are plenty of cases
>of law enforcement getting involved in "IP infringement" cases where the
>infringement was dubious if not entirely absent.
So, even you admit that you have no clue what you're talking about. Amazing.
Nobody
>> > So... US customs simply stopped checking out imported parts
>> > because they were afraid of law suits?
>>
>> One possibility is that the manufacturers overreached, calling
>> "counterfeit" on genuine parts being traded through non-approved channels
>> or even just competing work-alike parts.
>>
>> I have no idea whether that's at work here, but there are plenty of cases
>> of law enforcement getting involved in "IP infringement" cases where the
>> infringement was dubious if not entirely absent.
>
> Sounds interesting. Do you have some cases in mind you can reference?
I don't have citations for specific cases.
One area where dubious claims of trademark infringement are particularly
common is fashion (clothing, accessories, cosmetics, perfume), where the
brand owners seem to habitually claim that any unauthorised resale is
trademark infringement.
Nobody
>>> So... US customs simply stopped checking out imported parts
>>> because they were afraid of law suits?
>>
>>One possibility is that the manufacturers overreached, calling
>>"counterfeit" on genuine parts being traded through non-approved channels
>>or even just competing work-alike parts.
>
> No, unless the parts have the manufacturer's markings on them they wouldn't be
> considered counterfeit, by anyone. If they do (and have not been sold into
> the channels by the manufacturer), they are, no matter how well they might
> work. Simple.
They may not be "counterfeit" by any reasonable definition of the term,
but "IP holders" don't seem to be constrained by such definitions.
The term "counterfeit" is regularly used to describe products which are
obviously not legitimate copies, e.g. CDs and DVDs made on recordable
media. This usage even extends to the proposed "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement" (ACTA), which has little do with counterfeiting, and is
primarily related to copyright.
>>I have no idea whether that's at work here, but there are plenty of cases
>>of law enforcement getting involved in "IP infringement" cases where the
>>infringement was dubious if not entirely absent.
>
> So, even you admit that you have no clue what you're talking about. Amazing.
I very much doubt that anyone in this thread actually *knows* the reasons
behind customs' decision.
Jim Thompson
Any "engineer" who wears anything more exotic than a Timex is
certainly suspect ;-)
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:50:19 -0500, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
>>>> So... US customs simply stopped checking out imported parts
>>>> because they were afraid of law suits?
>>>
>>>One possibility is that the manufacturers overreached, calling
>>>"counterfeit" on genuine parts being traded through non-approved channels
>>>or even just competing work-alike parts.
>>
>> No, unless the parts have the manufacturer's markings on them they wouldn't be
>> considered counterfeit, by anyone. If they do (and have not been sold into
>> the channels by the manufacturer), they are, no matter how well they might
>> work. Simple.
>
>They may not be "counterfeit" by any reasonable definition of the term,
>but "IP holders" don't seem to be constrained by such definitions.
Customs is, or is supposed to be.
>The term "counterfeit" is regularly used to describe products which are
>obviously not legitimate copies, e.g. CDs and DVDs made on recordable
>media. This usage even extends to the proposed "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
>Agreement" (ACTA), which has little do with counterfeiting, and is
>primarily related to copyright.
Read what I said above.
>>>I have no idea whether that's at work here, but there are plenty of cases
>>>of law enforcement getting involved in "IP infringement" cases where the
>>>infringement was dubious if not entirely absent.
>>
>> So, even you admit that you have no clue what you're talking about. Amazing.
>
>I very much doubt that anyone in this thread actually *knows* the reasons
>behind customs' decision.
Yet you're pulling shit out of your ass and flinging it anyway.
Spehro Pefhany
Duracell batteries- gray market imports of genuine Duracell batteries
from their Belgian plant were undercutting batteries sold through the
US distribution chain, so they tried to stop them by claiming some
kind of IP infringement IIRC.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> So... US customs simply stopped checking out imported parts
> because they were afraid of law suits?
>
> http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15990184?nclick_check=1
>
> Customs used to ask legitimate chipmakers to help it
> check out suspected parts. But it stopped that two
> years ago, fearing it could be prosecuted for revealing
> confidential information about the seller of the parts
> to another company. Since then, the association noted,
> there has been a "dramatic decrease" in fake-chip
> seizures.
That doesn't make sense. Customs can't be sued for holding you or your
goods up at the border. Or consulting with domestic experts for
evaluation of foreign technology (even if those domestic experts are
direct competitors of the foreign vendor).
You don't like the terms, you just turn around at the border and go
home. Legal and Constitutional rights apply only once people or goods
have cleared customs.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.
Michael A. Terrell
Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> RH is a googlegroups fairy :-)
Has he ever posted 'anything' other than his pathetic ankle biter
comments?
Joel Koltner
news:87oa865beum4lmbvb...@4ax.com...
> No, unless the parts have the manufacturer's markings on them they wouldn't
> be
> considered counterfeit, by anyone. If they do (and have not been sold into
> the channels by the manufacturer), they are, no matter how well they might
> work. Simple.
I'm the proud recipient of a DMCA takedown order from Apple, claiming that a
used cell phone I was selling on eBay was "counterfeit." The auction's title
didn't contain anything suggesting "Apple," "iPhone," or similar, and the
actually talked about how, while the styling was similar to that of a
mini-iPhone, the performance was nowhere near as good, with the touch screen
being awful and the software being clunky.
In other words, it made it very, very clear that it was anything BUT an
iPhone. (It's a CECT KA08 phone, for the curious.) It's absurd to suggest
that anyone would think this was somehow an actual Apple product.
I'm mulling over whether or not I want to up the ante and send Apple a counter
notice -- at that point they're required to either rescind their orignial
notice, or else sue me.
(I'm giving them a week to respond in the interim...)
Should be fun... :-)
---Joel
Richard Henry
I got a notice a few years back from my ISP accusing me of
distributing illegal copies of a movie I had never heard of. My
denials were met with threats of confiscation of my computer and
network equipment. I told them when I would be home, but never heard
from them again.
Richard Henry
wrote:
> Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> > RH is a googlegroups fairy :-)
>
> Has he ever posted 'anything' other than his pathetic ankle biter
> comments?
>
mi...@sushi.com
wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 20:53:31 -0700 (PDT), "m...@sushi.com" <m...@sushi.com>
You do realize there is a difference between temporary most favored
nation and permanent most favored nation.
mi...@sushi.com
Gee, hard to imagine a phone that works worse than the iphone, well at
least as a phone. Apple needs more engineers and less lawyers.
I think if Apple had a case, they would ask ebay to take the ad down.
Spehro Pefhany
Almost every nation is "most favored" which is why they've stopped
useing that term. It's now "Normal trade relations". The exceptions
can be counted on a few fingers.
Jim Thompson
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>> RH is a googlegroups fairy :-)
>
>
> Has he ever posted 'anything' other than his pathetic ankle biter
>comments?
Nope. He's been in my killfile for years. We'd never see his
insanities except that certain clowns keep feeding the troll :-)
Nobody
> Duracell batteries- gray market imports of genuine Duracell batteries
> from their Belgian plant were undercutting batteries sold through the
> US distribution chain, so they tried to stop them by claiming some
> kind of IP infringement IIRC.
I don't know about EU->US, but unauthorised US->EU imports are considered
trademark infringement. Essentially, the trademark owner licenses the
mark for use on specific products in specific territories; use of the mark
on other products (even if made by the trademark holder and licensed in
other territories) is considered an infringement of the mark.
But the manufacturers often don't stop there, arguing that they sold
products with non-transferable trademark licences, so any unauthorised
resale (even within the EU or within the same country) infringes the
mark. This argument won't succeed in court, but it doesn't stop them
using it to frustrate unauthorised sales.
Nobody
>>They may not be "counterfeit" by any reasonable definition of the term,
>>but "IP holders" don't seem to be constrained by such definitions.
>
> Customs is, or is supposed to be.
In which case, if they're going to involve manufacturers in decisions as
to whether or not products are "counterfeit" (which is what the article
was about), they shouldn't automatically treat such claims as gospel.
Otherwise, the manufacturer gets to make overreaching claims of
infringement while the public picks up the tab for any liability arising
from improper seizures.
While customs may be entitled to a fair amount of discretion, basing
decisions on information from an interested party is likely to be
problematic.
Joel Koltner
news:6402b594-c40f-4d64...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 7, 3:58 am, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think if Apple had a case, they would ask ebay to take the ad down.
They did -- and eBay just rolls over and does as asked, without even taking a
15-second glance to see whether or not the reason for the request has any
basis in reality.
Although I suppose they don't have a whole lot of choice in the matter --
they'd likely be risking some liability if they got in the middle, I suppose.
Jim Thompson
You're missing your _literally_ "golden" opportunity. Get an
expensive shyster lawyer and sue Apple (and eBay ;-)
Richard Henry
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:26:14 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>
>
> >Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> >> RH is a googlegroups fairy :-)
>
> > Has he ever posted 'anything' other than his pathetic ankle biter
> >comments?
>
> Nope. He's been in my killfile for years. We'd never see his
> insanities except that certain clowns keep feeding the troll :-)
>
anything other than ankle biter comments?
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:44:48 -0500, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
>>>They may not be "counterfeit" by any reasonable definition of the term,
>>>but "IP holders" don't seem to be constrained by such definitions.
>>
>> Customs is, or is supposed to be.
>
>In which case, if they're going to involve manufacturers in decisions as
>to whether or not products are "counterfeit" (which is what the article
>was about), they shouldn't automatically treat such claims as gospel.
So you think that Customs should he the judge and jury?
>Otherwise, the manufacturer gets to make overreaching claims of
>infringement while the public picks up the tab for any liability arising
>from improper seizures.
>
>While customs may be entitled to a fair amount of discretion, basing
>decisions on information from an interested party is likely to be
>problematic.
So you thin that Customs should work in a vacuum, with no input from the IP
owner (or licensee)?
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Go for it. Then counter for restraint, Sherman, libel, and a bad hair day.
>(I'm giving them a week to respond in the interim...)
>
>Should be fun... :-)
You think they're going to respond without motivation?
Joel Koltner
news:0jgd86pooqfhqvnkf...@4ax.com...
> You think they're going to respond without motivation?
They sent me back a boilerplate response today. I sent them a polite
response... perhaps I can get to someone who can actually think there...
One sentence in the boilerplate did make me think: "Please be advised that
eBay was notified because the item in question was identified as containing
counterfeits and/or infringements of Apple's federally-registered trademarks
and/or copyrights, based on the photographs and description you provided.
These trademarks include, among others, the Apple logo, home screen icons and
the home button." -- The phone in question is made to *look* roughly like an
iPhone (see, e.g., http://ka08phonereview.com/ ), so I'm beginning to think
that Apple maintains *any and all* CECT band, model KA08 phones infringe on
their trademarks by virtue of the home button and icons looking similar... and
they just haven't gotten around to sending out takedown notices to every web
site with a picture of one?
---Joel
Richard Henry
> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
>
> news:0jgd86pooqfhqvnkf...@4ax.com...
>
> > You think they're going to respond without motivation?
>
> They sent me back a boilerplate response today. I sent them a polite
> response... perhaps I can get to someone who can actually think there...
>
> One sentence in the boilerplate did make me think: "Please be advised that
> eBay was notified because the item in question was identified as containing
> counterfeits and/or infringements of Apple's federally-registered trademarks
> and/or copyrights, based on the photographs and description you provided.
> These trademarks include, among others, the Apple logo, home screen icons and
> the home button." -- The phone in question is made to *look* roughly like an
> that Apple maintains *any and all* CECT band, model KA08 phones infringe on
> their trademarks by virtue of the home button and icons looking similar... and
> they just haven't gotten around to sending out takedown notices to every web
> site with a picture of one?
>
> ---Joel
In my case, my ISP said they were certain of my alleged transgression
becq\ause an independent third-party group running sophisticated
software had analyzed their network traffic and determined I was
committing a crime. I scoffed, "People and software - whoever heard
of those entities making errors?"
mi...@sushi.com
wrote:
> <m...@sushi.com> wrote in message
Oh, so ebay is as big of an arsehole as Apple. Gotcha. As a seller on
ebay, you can at least get them on the phone. They hide the number
from the buyers.
Ebay was good, but they got do damn greedy. They plaster the website
with annoying ads. They allow those time wasting reserve auctions. I
buy more stuff on Craigslist these days. Yeah, I know ebay has their
fingers into Craigslist.
I'm dreading the day Meg Whitman buys her way into the governors seat.
She is beyond a flip-flopper. She is an oscillator, bashing Mexican
one day then buying time on Spanish language stations the next. No
politician has a backbone of jello like Whitman. At least Carly
Fiorina is a consistent arsehole, spouting the same nonsene day after
day.
JosephKK
<jo...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:36:13 -0400, Ecnerwal
><MyName...@ReplaceWithMyVices.Com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <8ao786h7dj3k49lp9...@4ax.com>,
>> Jon Kirwan <jo...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
>>
>>> There must have been _credible_
>>> legal threats in the air in order to force that change and
>>> those making the credible threats must not have been
>>> sufficiently interested in finding an accommodation, for
>>> reasons I have a hard time figuring out.
>>
>>You're making a big mistake in the "taking them at their word"
>>department, I think. Legal threats (the vaguer, the better) make a fine
>>red herring when the real reason is perhaps much simpler - any of the
>>following seem possible:
>>
>>A: simply that they didn't want to be bothered (time, manpower/etc. wise)
>
>Not very believable, in this case.
You are way too trusting of government.
>
>>B: are concentrating more on "homeland security" than "giving a #@$&
>>what fake crap is being shipped in" - looking for bomb materials etc.
>>and not wanting to look for chips that look like other chips but are not.
>
>I don't know how they were doing the checking before. The
>article mentioned enough to suggest that the process involved
>manufacturers and that the problem seemed to be nothing like
>what you are suggesting, reading the article closely.
>Besides, they appear to have been doing a successful job of
>it until they stopped doing it in 2008. Which is well after
>the peak of post 9/11 homeland security activities in the US.
Security show is far more inportant to the politicians than real
security.
>
>No, I don't think that's believable, either.
>
>>C: were not getting enough in fines and fees to make it worth their while
>
>Not a convincing theory to me, in this case.
When the military is getting bilked, it changes the issues, think it
through.
>
>>D: were offered too much in paper bags and offshore accounts for it to
>>be worth their while continuing, since counterfeiting is a nice high
>>profit business.
>
>Okay. I think we stop here.
Yes, America is becomming as publucly corrupt as African nations.
>
>I'll keep wondering, for now.
>
>Jon
JosephKK
Is there nobody else here that remembers some threads within the past
year about some regulars here getting burned by counterfeit power
transistors?
Michael A. Terrell
JosephKK wrote:
>
> Is there nobody else here that remembers some threads within the past
> year about some regulars here getting burned by counterfeit power
> transistors?
Yes, and there are pictres online where a real part and a fake were
cracked open to show multiple, small dies in parallel, in place of the
real die.
Charlie E.
Or, the case a guy I met told me of...
Major Cel Phone Company contracted with chinese plant to build 500K
cel phones, and told him (chip manufacturer rep) to expect order for
500K parts.
Order comes in for 1M parts! he checks with chinese rep, No, no
mistake, they need 1M parts.
Factory was going to go ahead and build 1M units, and sell the extras
themselves. Whether they were for 'domestic' consumption, or export
as 'counterfit' he didn't know!
Charlie
Nobody
>>In which case, if they're going to involve manufacturers in decisions as
>>to whether or not products are "counterfeit" (which is what the article
>>was about), they shouldn't automatically treat such claims as gospel.
>
> So you think that Customs should he the judge and jury?
There's a difference between obtaining input on a decision and simply
letting another party take the decision for you; particularly when
there's reason to believe that they may have an "aspirational"
interpretation of their legal rights.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
SO you think the government should have the expertise to know a fake IC from a
real one? You think the bureaucrat should be the judge and jury?
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
That's a good point, and one probably wide enough to not invite a suit. ;-)
JW
wrote in Message id: <no6e86pev9f4cpr4p...@4ax.com>:
Yup. And FWIW, we've been burned before with counterfeit SRAM.
Richard Henry
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:31:45 -0700 "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in Message id: <no6e86pev9f4cpr4pjkvs458vlucvl9...@4ax.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:31:06 +0100, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:30:26 -0700, Richard Henry wrote:
>
> >>>> > So... US customs simply stopped checking out imported parts
> >>>> > because they were afraid of law suits?
>
> >>>> One possibility is that the manufacturers overreached, calling
> >>>> "counterfeit" on genuine parts being traded through non-approved channels
> >>>> or even just competing work-alike parts.
>
> >>>> I have no idea whether that's at work here, but there are plenty of cases
> >>>> of law enforcement getting involved in "IP infringement" cases where the
> >>>> infringement was dubious if not entirely absent.
>
> >>> Sounds interesting. Do you have some cases in mind you can reference?
>
> >>I don't have citations for specific cases.
>
> >>One area where dubious claims of trademark infringement are particularly
> >>common is fashion (clothing, accessories, cosmetics, perfume), where the
> >>brand owners seem to habitually claim that any unauthorised resale is
> >>trademark infringement.
>
> >Is there nobody else here that remembers some threads within the past
> >year about some regulars here getting burned by counterfeit power
> >transistors?
>
> Yup. And FWIW, we've been burned before with counterfeit SRAM.
>
It's a QA maxim that you can't test quality in, so buying through
unknown channels abandons any hope of complete quality control.
Nobody
>>There's a difference between obtaining input on a decision and simply
>>letting another party take the decision for you; particularly when
>>there's reason to believe that they may have an "aspirational"
>>interpretation of their legal rights.
>
> SO you think the government should have the expertise to know a fake IC from a
> real one? You think the bureaucrat should be the judge and jury?
Well, as you're mentioning "judge and jury" ... in a trial neither the
judge nor the jury are experts on the matter being tried. Instead, they
hear evidence on specific facts from both sides, then make their decision.
They don't just let the plaintiff decide the verdict.
JW
<pome...@hotmail.com> wrote in Message id:
<faabe6c8-e60d-4e3c...@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
I agree, and as I stated in the thread I don't like or approve of buying
from brokers such as Part Miner (spit). BUT, if there are no other choices
as a lead time of 8+ weeks has developed and your customer is screaming
for product, there's not many alternatives.