個案總覽

The recent case of fake Avastin1 brought the problem of counterfeit pharmaceuticals to the forefront of illicit trade. Drug counterfeiters are opportunistic criminals motivated by the windfall profits that are realized from selling fake pharmaceuticals with limited legal penalties. This article describes the interrelated trends that may trigger a catastrophic situation of counterfeit drugs infiltrating the global pharmaceutical supply chain--a 'perfect storm.' We discuss the failure of policymakers to note the early warning signs and the ease of penetrating the pharmaceutical supply chain--both physically and virtually--by an array of illicit traders, ranging from small cottage operations to full-scale manufacturing facilities; the recent U.S. legislation enacted to curb growth in counterfeit pharmaceuticals; and the proliferation of national, multilateral, and industry-led agencies to protect the prescription drug supply chain. Finally, we conclude with an analysis of anticounterfeiting tactics (e.g., consumer education campaigns, authentication technology) developed by various stakeholders.

In this article, we present the findings of a study examining the exploding problem of counterfeit trade via the opinions of U.S. executives as compared to their counterparts from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Tahiti. Their responses provide insight as to how companies in different countries are attacking piracy and consumer complicity with counterfeit products. Per our study, executives in Australia, Tahiti, and the U.S. had similar perspectives: they viewed the seller as the main driver of counterfeit trade for reasons of profit. These executives perceived the demand for counterfeits as being driven by desirable product attributes and the ease of obtaining them. Likewise, they cited two anti-counterfeiting actions-site licenses and reduced price/rebates-as being able to reduce the demand for illicit products. In contrast, South African executives observed the main reason for piracy as weak enforcement of intellectual property (IP) and the lure of exorbitant profits, with little value in any anti-counterfeiting actions other than special packaging. These executives put forth that South African consumers are complicit due to limited education and low disposable income, and the ready availability of counterfeits. Executives from New Zealand were the most optimistic, believing that piracy and complicity can be reduced by many anti-counterfeiting actions, including special packaging, reducing price, emphasizing product benefits/warranties, stressing the harmful effects of using fake products, offering site licenses, and listing of authorized sellers.