I have read so many article of this site in which some of them were very interesting and inspiring.This article has good title with good description.i am very happy that i found this site. I have bookmarked this site to visit again and find out the new post.I just want to say, is a wonderful article http://www.customessaywritingservices.org/
I find it very strange that manufacturers wouldn't already have access to those photos. I'm struggling to envision how there could be any intellectual property right issues. It sounds like the photos don't show anything that isn't public information and it's the manufacturer's logo.
The legislation tracking serve GovTrack.us reports that this bill has gained two new cosponsors in the House, Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).
We have also spoken to a group of entrepreneurs trying to come up with a trusted foundry solution to the fake chip problem and its impact on the military supply chain. The startup is called AmericanMiniFoundry (www.AmericanMiniFoundry.com). The founders report tough sledding so far in their efforts to identify a foundry site. You'll be hearing more from about about AmericanMiniFoundry in the weeks ahead.
Clearly chip makers know the details of the markings that they apply to chips. Why should there be any restriction on their access to images of counterfeits? It would seem valuable information for them to help detect counterfeits and to enhance the security of the product markings to make counterfeiting those marks more difficult.
I am sure that if there is money to be made then people will find a way! That said, the opposite is true: if there is a way to save money people will be tempted to do so. This law is a no brainer, in fact I am wondering why it is currently illegal? I agree with earlier posts about buying from a reputable distributor and then HOLDING them accountable.
To counter this menace, we need an international treaty kind of a thing where all nations will have a uniform licensing policy for parts and chip manufacturers to get an legal undertaking from them that they will not engage themselves in counterfeit parts manufacturing or selling.
The issue can easily be fixed, as Les_Slater said, by buying from reputable source.
If a US based distributor is delivering the counterfeit parts to buyers, they shall be responsible. They can likely be able to go back to the suppliers to get the lost back. This way, any US based distributor will likely buy parts from reputable source. Only reputable suppliers will survive. Isn't it supposed to be how free market works?
Entire world should take this kind of steps, to prevent fake chips entering into the design and manufacturing processes. Just a year before I had wasted 2 and half month in troubleshooting one of my design that had a fake chip used in it. At last I got the remedy by changing it buying from other reputed vendor.
Unfortunately, you are spot on. Even as we gain more visibility and attention with the American MiniFoundry, the sense of urgency within The beltway is pathetic
See you in SF on July 11th !
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.