Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1527276
44 SMT007 MAGAZINE I OCTOBER 2024 dards and guidance, but IPC has not really tackled this issue head-on. ey have done some good work in certain areas, such as track- ing, that are peripheral to this subject. How- ever, SAE has the history, infrastructure, and subject matter experts within its sphere of activity. ey would be a good place to tackle this, but nothing has been started yet. Das: In Europe and globally, IEC has done something, but lately, they've been citing SAE standards. SMTA has never been in the busi- ness of picking standards. SMTA has been a big booster for IPC, and has always provided a platform, although that has frayed a bit. ey are another place that is a little bit smaller than IPC and may be able to get this done. What can the EMS houses do to protect them- selves and move this effort forward? What's the call to action? Azarian: We're just scratching the surface here. Diganta's example of that outfit that put these network units together is interesting from the perspective of enforcement because the OEMs of equipment and assemblies are almost exclu- sively using trademark enforcement in this space. Cisco, for example, is one of the few companies doing anything to protect its trade- mark. In the parts space, the original component manufacturers (OCMs) don't pursue counter- feiters. ere are virtually no legal cases where they've gone aer counterfeiters. Intel will go aer companies using the Pentium logo, but in terms of counterfeiting, there isn't anything meaningful going on. In some ways, the folks in the assembly space are operating in a dangerous sphere when it comes to legal liability. It is so hard to enforce laws when the offender may be in a differ- ent country. at's where having standards is essential so that the organizations themselves know how to identify and control that risk. When you look at all the different things that are required to secure the supply chain, one of the issues is accountability. at's not some- thing we see on the parts side of things, but we do see that on the assembly side. Is it accurate to say that EMS companies have limited control over what comes into and out of their facilities and that they don't have a lot of control over what might happen to that product once they've shipped it from their dock? Das: I would say, of course, component-wise, their supply chain has well-established stan- dards and laboratory methodologies. Even a database of images from an organization like Cybord, if they are willing to work with them on what can be detected, would be helpful. I think they should make that a requirement in their facilities because such organizations have the same level of inspection and risk mitiga- tion requirements as the prime contractors. It may sound like that's a lot of responsibility, but most of the midsized EMS companies are actu- ally in a better position than some of the prime contractors. at's because, in most cases, they have a lab where they're putting together the whole bill of materials. I would recommend invoking AS6171 as a requirement for inspection. Now, if somebody " ere are virtually no legal cases where they've gone aer counterfeiters. "