Replies to post #2271 on Sure Trace (SSTY)

[CSI-Guy]

Technology Choice...
Dale, each technology has a place but neither covers all the application ranges. INKS (Ink Sure Technologies) also has a very strong technology, based in UV wavelength response and inexpensive authenticating readers ($150) as opposed to SDNA's Innov-x analyzers at $25,000 each (not made by Sure Trace).

SureTrace's SDNA, Intellimarx's i-DNA, the "original" S-DNA from a defunct company called Permion and the process described in Stephen Price's patent application are all based on inorganic elemental markers which are "decoded" using an elemental analysis process, either by using a non-destructive x-ray method or by using a far more accurate laboratory procedure such as mass spec (atomic absorption, laser ablation, etc.). The process has been used since the 1920's to "tag" items, so it is not a new technology. However, the inorganic technologies that came on the market in the late 1980's and 1990's primarily used rare earth elements as their marking ingredients and the rare earths are well known for their ability to invade substrates.

They do not "bond" however - a truly misleading statement from SureTrace, as is the staement about a "wireless" analyzer. The analyzer has to be in contact with the marked surface for at the least several seconds to obtain a reading. "Wireless" implies "distance". A bar-code reader is wireless but is restricted to line-of-sight, generally a few feet at max. RFID is readable up to a 300 foot radius for the best systems - most are resticted to less than a foot. SDNA-class markers can not be decoded from a distance at all. They can be detected by UV light from a distance, but not decoded.

The APDN (Applied DNA Technologies) has had a bumpy investor and management ride and makes a marking product based on DNA. It is not a substrate invader. Analysis is by laboratory testing and it is expensive. There are other DNA markers available. SelectaMark from Great Britain markets a DNA-based product called Selecta-DNA. They are a well established company with representatives in 35 countries at last count - profitable and stable since the early 1990's. Great Britain's Smartwater also makes a marker based on organics originally called Probe FX and have a mass-market product called Smartwater Instant.

S-DNA, SDNA, i-DNA do not contain DNA. They use the term to describe the impact of the technology concerning identification - as an analogy. But all of them "invade" wheras DNA markers do not invade. Both can be incorporated into a product's matrix during manufacture, although DNA-based markers have trouble with high heat whereas the SDNA, i-DNA and S-DNA products are very resistant to heat or recombination. If I was marking a brake drum, I'd use the inorganic SDNA type marking class. If I was marking artwork, I might choose a true DNA marker based on the artist's DNA. INKS technology is also good for art and very good for things like printed documents where it has experienced some very good trials.

My particular choice for a winner for mass markets would be the INKS technology primarily because of the ability to do an accurate decoding in the field using a cheap reader. All the others demand expensive laboratory-quality equipment. Also, INKS has stable management, a problem that has plagued all of the SDNA-type ventures. Disclaimer: I am not associated with INKS in any way - just think their technology has been well constructed and managed. But I also think the other technologies also have their place, but likely not in mass markets. INKS would be best for label applications for mass markets and branding, SDNA-class markers are best for parts and products that cannot retain or carry a label or experience extreme environments (heat, weathering, cold, abrasion, etc.). They are also good for marking products at the maufacturing raw material level, such as plastics or paper or cardboard and even molten metals.

So, Dale, no easy answer. I would, however, be very suspect of global claims for an all-purpose anti-counterfeiting solution. It really doesn't exist. The SDNA class and the true DNA class products can all be very easily defeated - but I won't divulge how. Let's just say they are not as secure as the companies would lead you to believe. Those who are responsible for analyzing technologies for competency at "high" international security levels have examined them years ago and discovered their weaknesses - that's why none of them will emerge as a universal winner. All are partially competent but none are competent "enough".