Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Intangible assets now make up more than 90% of S&P 500 market value — yet many organizations still lack a dedicated executive role to manage them strategically. This is where the Chief Intellectual Property Officer (CIPO) comes in. In this expert-backed piece, J.S. Held's Chief Intellectual Property Officer James E. Malackowski, CPA, CLP, and his colleague David Ngo unpack the economic forces shaping this role, the skills CIPOs bring to the table, and why forward-thinking companies are making IP leadership a boardroom priority. What you’ll learn: • The economic forces driving the rise of CIPO leadership • How CIPOs bridge legal, technical, and commercial priorities to unlock value • The growing relevance of CIPOs in consulting, insurance, and AI-driven industries • Practical strategies for integrating IP leadership into portfolio and risk management • Why the next decade will define the CIPO’s role in corporate success With deep expertise in IP strategy, valuation, and litigation, Malackowski and Ngo offer a clear, compelling case for elevating IP leadership to the C-suite. Looking to connect with the experts? Click on their profiles to arrange an interview or gain deeper insights into intellectual property strategy, risk, and valuation. James E. Malackowski, CPA, CLP Chief Intellectual Property Officer, J.S. Held | Co-founder and Senior Managing Director, Ocean Tomo Global leader in intellectual property valuation, strategic advisory, and expert testimony. Recognized among IAM’s “World’s Leading IP Strategists” and a pioneer in IP exchange models. David Ngo Senior Analyst, Intellectual Property Disputes Financial Expert Testimony, Ocean Tomo, a part of J.S. Held Specialist in quantifying economic damages in IP disputes and valuing intangible assets, with expertise in applying economic and financial analysis to complex litigation. For any other media inquiries, contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com.
4 out of 5 US Troops Surveyed Understand the Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines. Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests. When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal? The question may already be affecting troop morale. “The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring,” a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. “This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.” Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind – so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey “manifestly unlawful” orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that U.S. troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold. We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so. Compelled to disobey U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions. Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense. Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would “obey any order.” Only 9% “didn’t know,” and only 2% had “no comment.” When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were “obviously wrong,” “obviously criminal” or “obviously unconstitutional.” Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that “orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they’re immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.” Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey. The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was “harming civilians,” while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as “torturing prisoners” and “harming U.S. troops.” One wrote that “an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.” Soldiers, not lawyers But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust U.S. law as useful guidance. Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized U.S. law. Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the U.S. “Trump will issue illegal orders,” wrote one respondent. “The new laws will allow it,” wrote another. A third wrote, “We are not required to obey such laws.” Several emphasized the U.S. political situation directly in their remarks, stating they’d disobey “oppression or harming U.S. civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution” or an order for “use of the military to carry out deportations.” Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders – such as torture – is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general. This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law. Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel. This finding was also borne out in our survey. When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points. Drawing the line As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes. The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on “manifestly unlawful orders” before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders. When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order. But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%. While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable. Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one. Yet between one-third to half of the U.S. troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city. The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, “becoming violently ill.” Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey – even indirectly – others can more easily find the courage to do the same. Whitehead’s research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly. The initial results of our survey – coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline – suggest American men and women in uniform don’t want to obey unlawful orders. Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line. Zahra Marashi, an undergraduate research assistant at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, contributed to the research for this article.
Immigrants in the United States earn 10.6% less than similarly educated U.S.-born workers, largely because they are concentrated in lower-paying industries, occupations and companies, according to a major new study published July 16 in Nature, co-authored by a University of Massachusetts Amherst sociologist who studies equal opportunity in employment. The research—one of the most comprehensive global comparisons of immigrant labor market integration to date—analyzes linked employer-employee data from over 13 million people across nine advanced economies in Europe and North America. The U.S. results, drawn from a unique combination of Census Bureau, earnings and employer data, reveal that only about one-quarter of the wage gap is due to pay inequality within the same job and company. Instead, the majority stems from structural barriers that limit immigrants’ access to better-paying workplaces. “These findings are important because they show that most of the immigrant wage gap isn’t about being paid less for the same work—it’s about not getting into the highest-paying jobs and firms in the first place,” says Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, professor of sociology and founding director of the Center for Employment Equity at UMass Amherst Key U.S. Findings First-generation immigrants with legal status in the U.S. earn 10.6% less than comparable native-born workers. 3.4%, a third of that gap, is attributable to unequal pay for the same job at the same employer. No data was available on second-generation immigrants in the U.S., but other countries showed persistent but smaller gaps into the next generation. The study suggests that efforts to close immigrant wage gaps should focus on increasing immigrants’ access to better jobs and firms. Promising approaches include: Language and skills training Recognition of foreign credentials Access to professional networks Employer anti-bias interventions “Improving job access is essential,” says co-author Andrew Penner, professor of sociology at the University of California, Irvine. “This means addressing the barriers that keep immigrants out of the highest-paying firms and occupations.” As of 2023, immigrants constituted approximately 14% of the U.S. population, totaling over 47 million people. There are approximately 1 million new long-term permanent residents annually. U.S. immigration policy encompasses diverse pathways, including family-based migration, employment-based visas, the Diversity Visa Lottery and humanitarian protection. Immigration has been a defining feature of the U.S. population since its founding, with distinct waves shaped by economic needs, political developments and global conflicts. “For almost 250 years, we have been a nation of immigrants, and this pay gap indicates that we can do more as a country to help people following the paths of our forebears realize the American dream,” Tomaskovic-Devey adds. Global Comparison The study includes 13.5 million individuals in nine immigrant-receiving countries: the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden. The U.S. had one of the smallest pay gaps (10.6%) among the nine countries studied. By contrast, Canada showed a 27.5% gap and Spain a 29.3% gap. The most favorable outcomes for immigrants were in Sweden (7% gap) and Denmark (9.2%). The authors identify two main sources of the immigrant-native pay gap: Sorting—Immigrants are more likely to work in lower-paying industries, occupations and firms. Within-job inequality—In all countries immigrants are paid less than natives doing the same job for the same employer, but these gaps are relatively small. Across the nine countries, three-quarters of the 17.9% average wage gap for immigrants was due to sorting; just one-quarter stemmed from unequal pay within jobs. In the U.S., this pattern was consistent: structural job access—not wage discrimination—was the dominant force. The study also exposes persistent disadvantages for immigrants from certain world regions, including Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. Across all countries, immigrants from these regions faced larger wage gaps than immigrants from Western or Asian countries. The international research is the latest in a series of high-profile publications from a team spanning over a dozen countries in North America and Europe that has been investigating the dynamics of workplace earnings distributions for the last decade.
James Sample Shares Legal Expertise as ABC News Contributor
Hofstra Law Professor James Sample recently added ABC News Contributor to his title of professional accomplishments. In the past year, the media has consistently relied on Professor Sample for his engaging and in-depth analysis on various legal topics. He made his debut as an ABC News Contributor by discussing several major Supreme Court rulings, including limiting judges’ power to block the Trump Administration’s policies on birthright citizenship procedures.
Sample Weighs in on SCOTUS Ruling on Gender-Affirming Care for Trans Youth
Hofstra Law Professor James Sample appeared on ABC News to give a legal analysis on a new Supreme Court ruling that involves gender-affirming care for transgender children.
The Canadian Housing Market is a Mess
The Social Contract is Broken—And We Forgot to Tell Our Kids There was a time in Canada when the rules seemed straightforward: work hard, stick to the plan, and your kids would have an even better future than you did. That was the unspoken social contract—not legally binding, but deeply believed. A handshake between generations, sealed with maple syrup and mutual optimism. You purchased a modest home, stayed with one employer for 30 years, and retired with a gold watch, a pension, and a house you owned outright. Life wasn’t flashy, but it was fair. And your kids? They would climb even higher. Well… about that! The Housing Market: From Stepping Stone to Stumbling Block Homeownership used to be a rite of passage. Now it feels more like winning The Amazing Race: Toronto Edition. According to Statistics Canada housing data, in 1990, the average Canadian home sold for approximately $215,000. Fast-forward to late 2023–early 2024, and that number has ballooned to around $670,000–$700,000 on average —a more than 200–225% increase in just over three decades. Meanwhile, wages didn’t get the memo. Since 1990, they’ve only doubled. So, while home prices soared, incomes shifted to the kitchen for more instant noodles. It's not just a gap—it’s a canyon. Sure, there was a housing correction in the early ’90s. But if you’re under 40, you’ve never seen a price drop—only stable prices (on a good day). Meanwhile, boomers and older Gen Xers bought homes when down payments didn’t require a GoFundMe page. Boomers Rode the Rocket—Then Pulled Up the Ladder Let’s be honest: we did quite well. If you purchased property in the ’70s, ’80s, or ’90s, you benefited from a wave of equity that transformed retirement into a cruise ship brochure. For many, the house became the largest—and only—source of real wealth. We got used to it. Then we got protective. Then... well, a bit smug. • NIMBYism? Guilty. • Zoning restrictions? Voted yes. • Capital gains reform? Over my arthritic body. • Preferred Pronouns – Me, Myself and I We feared anything that could lower our property values. A 25% correction? Not in my golden years! But that might be what it takes to give our kids a fair shot. We told them to "work hard," then quietly reinforced a game they couldn’t win. We Told Them to Hustle—Then Rigged the Game Today’s young Canadians aren’t lazy; they’re exhausted. They’ve done everything we asked—degrees, careers, even side hustles—and still can’t afford a 500-square-foot shoebox in Toronto without cashing in their RRSPs or moving back into our basements. By the way, they’re doing this—not because they missed us, but because rent is eating up half their paycheque and still asking for dessert. Even worse? Many are looking abroad, not for a gap year, but for an economy in which they can participate—one where they might be able to afford a home and groceries in the same month. If the best and brightest are quietly packing their bags, it’s not wanderlust; it’s a policy failure. There’s now a whole ecosystem catalyzed by everything from consultants to cloud-based software and payment platforms that has aided a global movement of “creative-class” digital nomads. For those who want a more affordable cost of living and have the skills necessary to work remotely, this generation has options to move. In "Intelligent Money," author Chris Skinner envisions a future where AI-powered financial systems won’t just advise against homeownership—they’ll actively discourage it. Why commit to mortgage debt when you can rent flexibly, invest digitally, and maintain liquidity in your life? Not a dream, but a necessity. We told them to pull up their socks. They’re wondering if we sold their shoes. What Happened to Profit Sharing? Remember when companies used to share their success? Microsoft, Google, and yes, still Costco, offered profit-sharing or stock options that turned employees into unexpected millionaires. It wasn’t charity; it was a fair deal. Then gig work emerged, HR departments disappeared, and the only thing we shared was burnout. We need to restore fairness—perhaps even incentivize companies that value loyalty. Renter Equity Accounts: A Radical Concept—Equity You're not building wealth if rent is more than 30% of your income. You’re funding someone else’s retirement. So, here’s a thought: when rent exceeds 30%, why don’t we match the excess—25% to 50%—and deposit it into a locked “Renter Equity Account”? It grows tax-free and can be used for: • A down payment • Retirement savings • Student debt relief • Emergency funds Employers could contribute to REA plans. Governments could provide incentives, and renters could finally receive more than just a rent receipt and a pat on the back. It's Time for Bold, Practical Ideas We can’t rewind to 1990. (Although the fashion world is trying.) But we can fix what’s broken: Let Canadians earn their first $250,000 tax-free, provided it is used for a down payment or to eliminate student loans. That’s helping reduce overall debt. Ensure zoning reform is effective by linking federal infrastructure funding to genuine housing development. Establish public wealth tools - TFSA-style accounts for low-wealth, high-effort Canadians. Forgive student loans for public service, specifically for individuals filling positions such as nurses, teachers, early childhood educators, and tradespeople, with added incentives for those relocating to underserved areas. Invest in them, and they will reinvest in us. What Families Can Do—Right Now No, you can’t rewrite national policy from the kitchen table. (Unless you’re Chrystia Freeland.) But here’s what you can do: Start a down payment fund—consider using a TFSA or an investment account to help your kids build capital. Create an ADU—laneway homes, granny suites, legal basement rentals. Housing and support combined. Access your home equity—HELOCs or reverse mortgages can be lifelines, not luxury options. Create a rent-to-own family plan—turn monthly rent into future equity. Discuss finances—share your successes, warn against mistakes, and share the financial knowledge you’ve gained from hard lessons. An Apology—from the Heart To our kids and to the next generation, we should say we’re sorry. We didn’t plan for this outcome. We assumed the paths we walked would still be open for you, that the same rules would still apply, and that equity would be available to all. We forgot that a contract—even an unspoken one—still needs to be honoured. But it’s not too late. We can speak out. We can share our thoughts. We can change the policies, shift the mindsets, and reopen the doors that have been closed, because the future of this country shouldn’t be something you have to leave to find. Let’s fix this. So, you can stay. And thrive. And lead. Let’s rebuild the contract together. Deal? Don’t Retire … Re-Wire! Sue
10th Anniversary of the Supreme Court Legalizing Gay Marriage
The 10th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges marks a decade since same-sex marriage became legal nationwide—a pivotal moment in the advancement of LGBTQ+ rights and civil liberties. This anniversary is newsworthy not only because of the social and legal progress it symbolizes but also due to ongoing conversations around equality, representation, and protection under the law. As the political landscape shifts and new challenges emerge, revisiting the legacy of this decision offers an opportunity to reflect on progress, examine setbacks, and spotlight the voices shaping the next chapter in LGBTQ+ advocacy. Key story angles that may interest a broad audience include: Personal stories from couples and families: Exploring how the decision transformed lives and created new definitions of family, love, and legal recognition. The legal legacy of Obergefell v. Hodges: Analyzing the impact on subsequent LGBTQ+ rights cases and how the precedent continues to be tested in courts. Backlash and resistance: Investigating the rise of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and rhetoric in the decade following the ruling. Intersectionality within the LGBTQ+ rights movement: Highlighting the experiences of LGBTQ+ people of color, transgender individuals, and rural communities. The global ripple effect: Examining how the U.S. ruling influenced marriage equality movements in other countries. The future of LGBTQ+ rights: Discussing what comes next in the fight for inclusive healthcare, anti-discrimination laws, and gender identity recognition. Connect with our experts about the 10th Anniversary of the Supreme Court Legalizing Gay Marriage: Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com
The Impact of Counterfeit Goods in Global Commerce
Introduction Counterfeiting has been described as “the world’s second oldest profession.” In 2018, worldwide counterfeiting was estimated to cost the global economy between USD 1.7 trillion and USD 4.5 trillion annually, as well as resulting in more than 70 deaths and 350,000 serious injuries annually. It is estimated that more than a quarter of US consumers have purchased a counterfeit product. The counterfeiting problem is expected to be exacerbated by the unprecedented shift in tariff policy. Tariffs, designed as an import tax or duty on an imported product, are often a percentage of the price and can have different values for different products. Tariffs drive up the cost of imported brand name products but may not, or only to a lesser extent, impact the cost of counterfeit goods. In this article, we examine the extent of the global counterfeit dilemma, the role experts play in tracking and mitigating the problem, the use of anti-counterfeiting measures, and the potential impact that tariffs may have on the flow of counterfeit goods. Brand goods have always been a target of counterfeits due to their high price and associated prestige. These are often luxury goods and clothing, but can also be pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and electronics. The brand name is an indication of quality materials, workmanship, and technology. People will pay more for the “real thing,” or decide to buy something cheaper that looks “just as good.” In many cases, “just as good” is a counterfeit of the brand name product. A tariff is an import tax or duty that is typically paid by the importer and can drive up the cost of imported brand name products. For example, a Yale study has shown that shoe prices may increase by 87% and apparel prices by 65%, due to tariffs. On the other hand, counterfeit products don’t play by the rules and can often avoid paying tariffs, such as the case of many smaller, online transactions, shipped individually. Therefore, we expect to see an increase in counterfeit products as well as a need to increase efforts to reduce the economic losses of counterfeiting. The Scale of the Counterfeit Problem In their 2025 report, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), estimated that in 2021, “global trade in counterfeit goods was valued at approximately USD 467 billion, or 2.3% of total global imports. This absolute value represents an increase from 2019, when counterfeit trade was estimated at USD 464 billion, although its relative share decreased compared to 2019 when it accounted for 2.5% of world trade. For imports into the European Union, the value of counterfeit goods was estimated at USD 117 billion, or 4.7% of total EU imports.” In a 2020 report, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) estimated the size of the international counterfeit market as having a “range from a low of USD 200 billion in 2008 to a high of USD 509 billion in 2019.” According to the OEDC / EUIPO General Trade-Related Index of Counterfeiting for economies (GTRIC-e), China continues to be the primary source of counterfeit goods, as well as Bangladesh, Lebanon, Syrian Arab Republic, and Türkiye. Based on customs seizures in 2020-21, the most common items are clothing (21.6%), footwear (21.4%), and handbags, followed by electronics and watches. Based on the value of goods seized, watches (23%) and footwear (15%) had the highest value. However, it should be noted that items that are easier to detect and seize are likely to be overrepresented in the data. Although the share of watches declined, and electronics, toys, and games increased, it remains unclear whether this represents a long term trend or just a short term fluctuation. In general, high value products in high demand continue to be counterfeited. Data from the US Library of Congress indicates that 60% – 80% of counterfeit products are purchased by Americans. The US accounts for approximately 5% of the world’s consumers; however, it represents greater than 20% of the world’s purchasing power. Though it is still possible to find counterfeit products at local markets, a large number of counterfeit goods are obtained through online retailers and shipped directly to consumers as small parcels classified as de minimis trade. This allows for the duty-free import of products up to USD 800 in value. Counterfeit items may be knowingly or unknowingly purchased from online retailers and shipped directly to consumers, duty-free. Purchased products can be shipped via postal services, classified as de minimis trade. Approximately 79% of packages seized contained less than 10 items. Given the size and volume of the packages arriving daily, many or most will evade scrutiny by customs officials. This means of import is increasing over time. In 2017-19 it was 61% of seizures. By 2020-21, it was 79%. Economic Impact of Counterfeiting The scale of the counterfeiting problem has significant impacts on the US economy, US business interests, and US innovations in lost sales and lost jobs. Moreover, counterfeit products are often made quickly and cheaply, using materials that may be toxic. The companies producing these goods may not dispose of waste properly and may dump it into waterways, causing significant environmental consequences. Counterfeit products from electrical equipment and life jackets to batteries and smoke alarms may be made without adhering to safety standards or be properly tested. These products may fail to function when you need it and may lead to fire, electric shock, poisoning, and other accidents that can seriously injure and even kill consumers. Counterfeit cosmetics and pharmaceuticals can also lead to injuries by either including unsafe ingredients or by failing to provide the benefits of the real product. The Tariff Counterfeit Connection Tariffs may be seen as a tax on consumers and raise the price of imported products that are already the target of counterfeiters such as luxury leather products and apparel. It’s commonly understood that raising prices on genuine products can only drive up the demand for counterfeit goods. In general, consumers will have less disposable income and the brand goods they desire will cost more which is bound to increase the demand for counterfeit goods. Although recent changes removing the USD 800 tax exemption on de minimis shipments from China and Hong Kong will make it more expensive for counterfeiters to ship their goods internationally, tariffs are typically applied as a percentage of the cost of an object. This will cause the price of more expensive legitimate goods to increase even more than the cheaper counterfeit goods and likely make the counterfeit products even more attractive economically. Therefore, we expect to see an increase in counterfeit products as well as an increase in efforts to reduce the economic losses of counterfeiting. The Role of Technical Experts in Counterfeit Detection Technical experts play an important role in both the prevention and detection of counterfeits and helping to identify counterfeiting entities. Whether counterfeit money, clothing, shoes, electronics, cosmetics or pharmaceuticals, the first step in fighting counterfeits is detecting them. In some cases, the counterfeit product is obvious. A leather product may not be leather, a logo may be wrong, packaging may have a spelling mistake, or a holographic label may be missing. These products may be seized by customs. However, some counterfeit products are very difficult to detect. In the case of a counterfeit memory card with less than the stated capacity or a pharmaceutical that contains the wrong active ingredient, technical analysis may be needed to identify the parts. Technical analysis may also be used to try and identify the source of the counterfeit goods. For prevention measures, manufacturers may use radio frequency identification (RFID) or Near Field Communication (NFC) tags within their products. RFID tags are microscopic semiconductor chips attached to a metallic printed antenna. The tag itself may be flexible and easy to incorporate into packaging or into the product itself. A passive RFID requires no power and has sufficient storage to store information such as product name, stock keeping unit (SKU), place of manufacture, date of manufacture, as well as some sort of cryptographic information to attest to the authenticity of the tag. A simple scanner powers the tag using an electromagnetic field and reads the tag. If manufacturers include RFID tags in products, an X-ray to identify a product in a de minimis shipment (perhaps using artificial intelligence technology) and an RFID scanner to verify the authenticity of the product can be used to efficiently screen a large number of packages. Many products also may be marked with photo-luminescent dyes with unique properties that may be read by special scanners and allow authorities to detect legitimate products. Similarly, doped hybrid oxide particles with distinctive photo-responsive features may be printed on products. These particles, when exposed to laser light, experience a fast increase in temperature which may be quickly detected. For either of these examples, the ability to identify legitimate products, or – due to the absence of marking – track counterfeit products, allows authorities to map the flow of the counterfeit goods through the supply chain as they are manufactured, shipped, and are exported and imported to countries. For many years, electronic memory cards such as SD cards and USB sticks have been counterfeited. In many cases, the fake card will have a capacity much smaller than listed. For example, a 32GB memory card for a camera may only hold 1GB. Sometimes, these products may be identified by analyzing the packaging for discrepancies from the brand name products. In other cases, software must be used to verify the capacity and performance of each one, which is time-consuming when analyzing a large number of products. Forensic investigators, comprised of forensic accountants and forensic technologists, are heavily involved in efforts to combat this illicit trade. By analyzing financial records, supply-chain data, and transaction histories, they trace the origins and pathways of counterfeit products. Their work often involves identifying suspicious procurement patterns, shell companies, and irregular inventory flows that signal counterfeit activity. Forensic investigators often begin by mapping the counterfeit supply chain, an intricate web that often spans continents. Using data analytics, transaction tracing, and inventory audits, they identify anomalies in procurement, distribution, and sales records. These methodologies help pinpoint the origin of counterfeit goods, the intermediaries involved, and the final points of sale. By reconstructing the flow of goods and money, forensic investigators can begin to unmask activities. Cross-border partnerships are essential for tracking assets, sharing insights, and coordinating with financial regulators. Public-private partnerships further enhance the effectiveness of anti-counterfeiting efforts. Forensic investigators often serve as bridges between government agencies, brand owners, and financial institutions, facilitating the exchange of key information. These partnerships increase information-sharing, streamline investigations, and amplify the impact of enforcement actions. A promising development in this space is the World Customs Organization’s Smart Customs Project, which integrates artificial intelligence to detect and intercept counterfeit goods. Forensic investigators can leverage this initiative by analyzing AI-generated alerts and incorporating them into broader financial investigations, which allows for faster and more accurate identification of illicit networks. Jurisdictional complexity is a major hurdle in anti-counterfeiting efforts. Forensic investigators work closely with legal teams to navigate these challenges to ensure that investigations comply with local laws, and evidence is admissible and can withstand scrutiny in court, especially when dealing with offshore accounts and international money laundering schemes. Forensic investigators follow the money, tracing illicit profits through bank accounts, shell companies, and cryptocurrency transactions. Their findings not only help recover stolen assets but also support disputes by providing expert testimony that quantifies financial losses and identifies the bad actors. Conclusion Imitations of brand name products have become more convincing, harder to detect, and the sources of the counterfeit goods more difficult to identify. While counterfeiting clearly has evolved because of technological advancements, e-commerce, and the growing sophistication of bad actors, the process has now been complicated even further by the unpredictable tariff and trade policies that are affecting businesses worldwide. Consequently, companies need to take a multi-faceted approach to these new challenges introduced into the counterfeiting of products by tariffs. By engaging high-tech product authentication measures, utilizing technology-based alerts about counterfeits, and retaining the specialized skills of forensic investigators and other experts, companies will be able to navigate the risks posed by the complex and changing relationship between tariffs and counterfeit goods. To learn more about this topic and how it can impact your business or connect with James E. Malackowski simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today. To connect with David Fraser or Matthew Brown - contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com
Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in L.A. sparks legal questions
Professor of Law James Sample discussed the new travel ban enacted by the Trump Administration and its legality, and the use of National Guard troops in Los Angeles with MSNBC.
What is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)?
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), one of the most controversial federal agencies in the United States, plays a central role in enforcing immigration laws and maintaining national security. Created in the aftermath of 9/11 as part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ICE was established to consolidate and streamline immigration enforcement. Over the past two decades, it has become a lightning rod for political and ethical debate—raising urgent questions about border control, civil liberties, and immigration reform. As the national conversation around immigration intensifies, understanding the origins, structure, and impact of ICE remains critically important. Key story angles include: The Origins of ICE Post-9/11: Tracing the agency’s creation in 2003 under DHS and its intended role in counterterrorism and immigration enforcement. How ICE Operates Today: Breaking down ICE’s structure, including Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). Controversies and Public Backlash: Investigating high-profile incidents, including family separations, detention center conditions, and deportation raids that have sparked widespread protest. The Politics of Immigration Enforcement: Exploring how ICE has become a partisan issue, with calls for its reform, defunding, or abolishment emerging from activists and lawmakers. The Human Impact of ICE Actions: Highlighting stories of immigrants, asylum seekers, and communities affected by ICE policies and practices. Future of Immigration Enforcement: Examining policy proposals for reforming ICE, improving transparency, and addressing legal and ethical concerns in a changing demographic landscape. As immigration remains one of the most urgent and divisive issues in American politics, ICE stands at the heart of the debate—making its history, purpose, and evolving role a vital topic for journalists and the public to understand. Connect with our experts about the origins and role of ICE : Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com