If we lived in a utopian society full of love for its animal brethren and replete with respect for the human-animal relationships it enjoys, all pets would be microchipped with the same technology. Readers to detect these microchips would have been distributed long ago to every facility responsible for reuniting lost pets with their loving owners. And no commercial engine would intervene to hinder the microchipping system--currently the best one known to reunite man and beast.
Because we live in 21st century Earth, however, technology often has a way of taking a backseat to our commercial ways. It’s a price we all pay for the benefits of capitalism and private enterprise. So it is that while every microchip ever installed under an animal’s skin is theoretically detectible (there it is!) and readable (those are her identifying numbers), commercial conditions have conspired to keep Fluffy’s electronic safety-feature concealed in a depressingly sizable percentage of cases.
As I intimated in the last installment of this series, it would seem (to me and to any sane person) that the only tool you'd need to deal with the confusing issue of multiple-technology microchipping is a reader that can both detect and read all kinds of chips. We have the technology in the guise of a “universal” reader (aka “scanner”) that can detect and read both 125 and 134.2 kHz microchips, including the encrypted chips (I'll get to that soon).
As you might have guessed, however, knowing we can do something in theory doesn’t mean we can get it done in the real world. Given the past actions some microchip companies have taken to 1) effectively conceal the presence of other companies’ chips, 2) limit the ability of other companies to read their own chips and 3) legally or commercially interfere to restrict public access to universal readers, it’s clear that real world commercial machinations often trump technology and the public's demand for best practices.
Here’s the scoop:
Historically, microchip readers have been distributed by microchip companies. That’s how most shelters and vet hospitals come to have them. One reader lasts more than a dog’s age, so most facilities have no incentive to actually purchase something they received free of charge (and will continue to receive free of charge should they ask the company for a replacement).
Yes, any vet or shelter may now purchase a new, so-called "universal" reader. But these readers are sufficiently expensive, reader-replacement sufficiently inconvenient, and the impetus for doing so sufficiently obscure, that most microchip-reading facilities do not feel compelled to change out their scanners for an upgraded model.
Still, it’s only very recently (2007) that universal readers have come to be marketed stateside, though the technology has been around for years. One company with long-time access to this technology is AVID.
AVID, first-mover in the pet microchip market, encrypted its microchip information so that only facilities with an AVID reader could both detect the chip and read the pet’s identifying digits. You might think that’s because AVID has superior technology…but it’s not. It’s so they could maintain their lead in the game when other players wanted in…by making sure their reader was the most universal available.
Predictably, HomeAgain (the second entrant to the market) did not encrypt its chip information. Otherwise, all those vets and shelters already equipped with AVID readers would have to get a HomeAgain reader—not a barrier this new player wished to impose on its potential customers.
(Stay with me now...)
Recap: HomeAgain readers can tell that there’s a chip of the same technology under a pet’s skin but it just says “AV” on the reader. But AVID readers can read the exact number for HomeAgain and AVID chips. That makes it one step easier to get AVID-bearing pets back home. AVID essentially adds an extra layer to the process for HomeAgain’s readers—which makes it one step harder for pets to be reunited with their owner if they use HomeAgain's.
(I told you this would be complicated—and disgusting.)
AVID even manufactured and distributed a reader (in 2006!) that couldn’t even detect the presence of HomeAgain microchips, much less a pet’s ID numbers. Many vets and shelters that received these readers weren’t even aware that HomeAgain chips wouldn’t be detected (or read). Sure, it says so on the packaging…but that doesn’t translate to effective user-understanding.
How many shelters euthanized HomeAgain-chipped pets after this 2006 reader’s introduction? How many AVID-equipped shelters and vets even know that the reader currently in their hands can’t identify a HomeAgain-chipped pet—at all? Dunno. AVID doesn’t say how many they distributed—only that they did and that they still offer this marvelous tool.
AVID also markets a reader outside the US for ISO (134.2) chips. Its website also lists a universal scanner (which detects but doesn't read the ISO chip). AVID's universal scanner doesn't read ISO chips' numbers (in spite of AVID's ability to make it so) and, furthermore, fails to include any ISO detection on its routinely distributed readers. AVID claims it takes longer for chips to be read by universal scanners and therefore aren't “safe” to use. How to establish the veracity of this statement is beyond me since they haven’t answered my emails on getting one of these babies. (For the record, I finally found the universal scanner on an independent pet supply distributor's site--the universal scanner retails for $390).
The fact that there’s a solution to this dilemma in the form of a universal reader (whose optimization and distribution are apparently being withheld from the market for transparently protectionist tactics) is what’s most distressing to me.
The fact that AVID has held this technology for years frustrates me further—especially in light of their legal action against Banfield, “…for the unsafe use of a chip that can’t be detected by the existing infrastructure,” when they’re the number-one offender to pet safety in the industry. After all, who created the unsafe infrastructure to begin with? Who propagates its limitations with encrypted chips? And who’s got the ultimate power to ensure that safety? Three guesses.
You might wonder: How many vets know about these pet-unsafe competitive tactics? My vet colleagues at work don’t even know why our HomeAgain reader comes up “AV” (sans-digits). The microchip companies haven’t exactly broadcast their tactics. Sure, it’s been in the vet news but, as with faraway wars in Africa, that kind of info mostly flies under our busy-vet radars. Factor in the level of convolution on the technology and the boredom of legal maneuvering and this is one issue most vets gloss over entirely (myself included—until very recently).
The fact that real competition isn’t possible in our historically closed system means not only that pets won’t get back home again but also ensures that microchip prices will remain unduly high, leading to fewer protected pets and greater costs for cash-strapped shelters.
AVID should be ashamed. HomeAgain (and its Schering-Plough distributor) should also be called out for its reliance on AVID as big-bully protector (Burger King to its McDonalds). Banfield, on the other hand, can be lauded for its attempts to introduce real competition (but they get a solid “D” in execution).
It’s not the need to maintain an American standard that’s required in this market, it’s the very American desire to want as open and competitive a system as possible, especially when we’re not talking fast-food pricing, computer operating system availability or car distribution—this is about safety.
My assessment? AVID and HomeAgain’s protection of the market has put our ugly-American, robber-barron tactics on display for all the world to marvel at. And the AVID/HomeAgain duopoly still claims “patent protection” while the public (and the rest of the pet industry!) clamor for “pet protection.” Three guesses as to which group holds the moral higher ground.
Next up: The [very recent] good news in the microchip wars and where that leaves the responsible, safety-minded pet owners among us.
Add Comment36 Comments
Oh, fercryingoutloud. "Because we live in 21st century Earth, however, technology often has a way of taking a backseat to our commercial ways. It’s a price we all pay for the benefits of capitalism and private enterprise."
Where would you suggest that the money for developing things like chipping for pet animals comes from? Want to plow down some public housing and divert the money from social services? I know shantytowns are all the rage down there...
It's not like chip makers came up with the "we'll give out the razors, they'll buy the blades" model. And Banfield, bless their money-grubbing souls, started out by handing out chip readers that didn't see AVID chips. And you surely know (but don't mention) that any brightish engineering-bound 10th grader with access to RadioShack can make a "universal reader".
You might not like the patent system, but the fact is that AVID has the patents, and the other companies could have bought a license to those patents, made "friendlier" chips, and avoided this whole mess.
Got to say, your protectionist streak is right up there with Cameron Diaz' pretty little purse. One scratches one's head and wonders how you grew up not knowing any better.
Thing One July 1st, 2007 05:27:00 PM
Ask your clients to help you get a Universal reader. Put a sign up with a brief explanation, add a graph to show how the fund is progressing, and ask each one if they would contribute a dollar. Most people should be willing to dig the change out of their pockets, you're asking so little, and those dollars add up. Have an unveiling, show them what they got and thank them for being really great, really concerned companion animal owners. Worth a try.
Gil. July 1st, 2007 08:32:00 PM
Thing One,
The viciousness of your reply was really uncalled for. If you want to present your views, try to do it without personal attacks.
Gil. July 1st, 2007 08:36:00 PM
Ditto on Gil's last comment. Thanks, Gil.
Julie July 1st, 2007 09:37:00 PM
<i>You might not like the patent system, but the fact is that AVID has the patents, and the other companies could have bought a license to those patents, made "friendlier" chips, and avoided this whole mess.</i>
Thing One, other companies can buy licenses to the technology only if the patent holder, AVID, is willing to sell those licenses. And I rather think you know that. It's just one of the little dishonesties mixed in with the viciousness of your reply.
Lis July 1st, 2007 10:16:00 PM
Lis, AVID holds the patent. If it does not choose to licence some other manufacturers to use its technology, it doesn't have to, any more than, say, Merck has to let other manufacturers make its on-patent drugs. AVID itself is a licensee for a fundamental part of the technology it uses, and can be circumvented out of some of its turf. I am neither dishonest nor vicious for pointing out that patents are real or that licenses are possible.
I do think it's a bit disingenuous to wag fingers at AVID for being non ISO 11784/11785 compliant when the ISO standards were set years after AVID began chipping, but one could quibble that I quibble, and then I'd have to see that quibble and raise it by a nit.
I don't think it's inappropriate to point out that wagging a finger at private enterprise suggests public solutions should be found, to point out that Miami has developed a relatively unique (at least for the East Coast of the US) strategy for dealing with poverty that frees up valuable resources-- oh, if only those dollars could be diverted to advancing universal microchipping for private citizens' pets!-- or that Dr. Khuly's tendency toward protectionist approaches is as out of synch with her roots (and mine) as Cameron Diaz' apparent membership in the Shining Path fan club. But, as Cameron might say, "What-ever". Sadly, the internet is full of monstrous people, and one must simply ignore us if one finds us too itchy for one's mild constitution.
Thing One July 2nd, 2007 01:17:00 AM
Thing One, it's no surprise to see you switching tacks and moving the goalposts. YOU were the one who suggested that the other companies were at fault for not licensing the technology from AVID--as if their unwillingness to do so was the problem.
And, no, criticizing the bad behavior of a company is not the same thing as, and does not automatically imply that, the critic demanding public solutions. (Of course, neither are public solutions automatically bad, but that's neither here nor there.) It's entirely legitimate, and a normal, ordinary part of the free enterprise system (at least in countries that also have free speech; perhaps not in China), that people who don't like what a company is doing DON'T just shut and live with it. Sometimes the criticism from their customers, and from the people who act as their distributors (in this case, the vets), actually causes companies to change their behavior, and even modify their products or services.
When this happens, the companies have not, in fact, been deprived of their Deity-of-Your-Choice-given rights. They have instead responded to one of those "market forces" you may have read about in Econ 101.
I don't understand how Cameron Diaz comes into this, but I do hope you will not burden us with the no doubt convoluted explanation.
Lis July 2nd, 2007 09:28:00 AM
Gil: For us, it's not about the money for a scanner. We just didn't know any better so we kept scanning with the same one we've had for a decade. I'm more worried about shelters that can't afford it or about others who don't understand the system enough to know another scanner's a great idea.
Dr. Patty Khuly July 2nd, 2007 11:55:00 AM
Thing One:
The basic premise of these posts is to illustrate the faults of a few companies who *I believe* have acted poorly in the past. The goal is to showcase how the cry for "pet safety" has been manipulated by a few bad actors. I don't begdruge patent holders their fair share of what they helped bring to market. But I do get up in arms when their tactics undermine pet safety. Sure, they've used the commercial engine to achieve their financial goals--I'm NOT opposed to that. And that's not the point. At issue is that they've used that machine creatively in ways that hurt our pets. That's what I'm carping about.
Some facts you've got aren't quite right: AVID marketed its first pet microchips in the mid nineties. The ISO standard for pet microchips was put in place in 1991--long before AVID went after pets. The AVMA, AAHA and HSUS had recommended going ISO *well before* AVID marketed its chips. They did so anyway--as was their right--since they'd held patents since 1989 (they were using this microchip in birds for infectious disease tracking at the time).
I don't begrudge AVID the right to use and defend its patents. But using its self-proclaimed role as "pet safety police" of the industry to bar entry to other players with different technologies is galling to industry watchers who know AVID has long-encrypted their chips *at the expense of pet safety.*
At issue is not whether AVID has a right to do these things in our marketplace; it's whether doing so has been morally correct. I happen to think it hasn't. I happen to think their tactics unethical. But because we're talking about "privately owned animals" instead of children, and because their approach has been guarded and obfuscated by language couched in terms of animal safety, they've flown under the public awareness radar.
I wag no fingers at private enterprise for the purpose of being high-and-mighty about my anti-commercial stance. In fact, I think my Wharton MBA speaks volumes about my interest in commerce (are those the roots you refer to?). It's just that when I believe commerce isn't socially responsible, I like to point it out so the market can *really * speak for itself.
BTW, who's Cameron Diaz?
Dr. Patty Khuly July 2nd, 2007 12:21:00 PM
Don't mean to sound stupid here but, if the companies are providing their particular readers for free, can't you just get one of each?
Mary B. July 2nd, 2007 12:22:00 PM
Great question, Mary. Sure, if you implant their chips. You have to purchase a certain amount to qualify.
Dr. Patty Khuly July 2nd, 2007 12:25:00 PM
Lis,
The actions of the other companies-- including their attempts to circumvent AVID's patents were one strategy (apparently an ineffective one); negotiating licenses with AVID or the holder of the patent from which they developed their clever product would have been another. Might have led to a different outcome. It's not "bad behavior" to build a better mousetrap and defend your right to exclusively produce it.
Sorry that you've missed the entertaining Cameron Diaz kerfuffle (or that it has no resonance for you), but that was a reference directed to our illustrious blogger, not to assorted bystanders.
Thing One July 2nd, 2007 12:30:00 PM
What we have is a company whose professed aim is the safety of our pets. Yet this company has taken deliberate actions that make our pets less safe, or, at the very least, have given their owners a false sense of security. If a manufacturer of child playpens or car seat belts did the same would anyone be arguing about patents and private enterprise?
abc July 2nd, 2007 02:05:00 PM
Thing One, AVID made certain choices:
1. They chose to use their proprietary technology, even though the ISO standard had been promulgated several years earlier, at the expense of pet safety.
2. They encrypted their chips so that they can't be read by other scanners, to protect their market position, at the expense of pet safety.
3. They actively opposed adoption of the ISO standard in this country, to protect their market position, at the expense of pet safety.
4. They distributed scanners, as recently as last year, that would not even detect, much less read, the unencrypted chips sold by their main rivals, to protect their market position, ACTIVELY ENDANGERING pet safety.
Compared to that, well, Banfield infringed on AVID's patents. That's not right, and they ought not to have done that, but do you HONESTLY believe that that's as morally objectionable as adopting pet-endangering strategies to protect AVID's market position, when what AVID is selling is ostensibly meant to protect pet safety?
Do you seriously believe that because what AVID has done and is doing has been profitable and is not illegal, it ought therefore to be immune from criticism?
Lis July 2nd, 2007 03:12:00 PM
I want to thank you for posting this series, because I find it digusting but informative.
My dogs are chipped Home Again and my ferrets (who go to a different vet) are chipped AVID. I never gave the differing brands a second thought until all this. Now I feel sick to my stomach that my dogs - god forbid they ever get lost *and* dump their collars off somewhere - could be scanned and then labeled strays.
I have a tattoo on my younger, intact-for-now purebred (read: more likely to be stolen) but I'm not very happy with the way the NDR is being run regarding that. I paid my registration fee for his tattoo and never received any paperwork verifying it, no responses to my e-mails, etc. Not to get off-topic, but have you ever dealt with the National Dog Registry?
Hannah July 2nd, 2007 03:36:00 PM
The problem is not patents, the problem is marketing. Marketing is spinning,.. in a way. Presidential campaigns are marketing, most of politics is marketing... and sometimes, using marketing, you use concepts that your company theoretically supports to further your bottom line.
For instance. Would as many people microchip their pets and would so many shelters microchip every animal adopted if these chips weren't sold as a way of saving animals?
These companies say they are selling these chips because they save animals. They say 'if you buy me, your pet will be identified if found'.
also, HomeAgain says, "HomeAgain. Always looking out for your pet....Using a tiny microchip about the size of a grain of rice, HomeAgain connects you and your pet to a comprehensive pet recovery service"
Also, Homeagain states.. "With the HomeAgain microchip, on the other hand, your pet’s source of identification is always available."
AND "When a lost pet is found, any animal hospital, shelter, or humane society can use a special handheld microchip scanner to read our microchip’s unique ID number"
O really? ANY hospital, shelter, humane society? Identification is always available? No mention of incompatible scanners or issues in the chipping industries.
This sells products. The company also makes it personal...
See the 'about us' page on the AVID website. The VP states, "...The FBI utilized our microchip system to make arrests in animal theft rings. And, of course, countless family pets have been returned home thanks to the registered microchip. This technology is a good thing. Use it at your facility to make life easier for yourself, your animals and your clients or customers."
Make your animal's life easier. We make pet's lives better. Look into AVID's sheltercare program... we bring pets home.
They tout these things as core values of a company. Do they follow-up? According to the information presented on competition within the chip industry, no.
However, I think education about chip issues may change that- the way environmental education is changing how some mass merchandisers are doing business. Wal-mart is building green stores (environmentally friendly), Giant-Eagle has built green stores, etc etc. Wegmans, a grocery chain in the NE, touts on large in-store billboards that it has been consistently rated as one of the best companies to work for by business magazines.
If companies are held accountable for what they state as core values by clientele, they will have to change their business strategy or make their actions match their words.
See this article at the AVMA website for more info on the pet chip fight
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jul04/040701a.as...
It would be nice to see a couple of humane organizations and pet advocate organizations (shelters, humane societies, AVMA, perhaps AKC) band together to get the issue addressed in mainstream media and appeal to these companies to change chips and chip readers so that all chips can be read by a universal scanner that is made available by the company.
J. July 2nd, 2007 10:20:00 PM
Lis,
I'd stake out the high moral ground around the patent holder, yes. Exactly.
My goodness, there's no sense getting all capital-letterish about it! Patents are important, profit is an important driver; the story is complicated and fascinating.
Think about the notion of encrypting pet chips-- that's its own small can of worms. Imagine if pet chipping were embraced as some sort of "public good". Un-encrypted chips would quickly become verbotten purely as a privacy issue. I, myself, am shocked (shocked!) that all chips are not encrypted, but that only means that the flotila of lawyers has not yet docked.
The detector element of the story is especially fun, especially when people get to shouting. It's just another example of the "give-away-razors, they'll buy the blades" approach. What would the point be of giving away "one handle fits all" razors? It's no secret that those scanners so graciously distributed by the chip makers have their loyalties and issues.
It seems like the stated missions of many animal shelters would oblige them to go buy scanners that work across platforms. Although, I suppose, one shouldn't assume that animal shelters have animal welfare missions. Either way, though, I'd encourage critics to take aim at the shelters that haven't taken equiped themselves properly, and non-critics who care about the issue to go ahead and donate appropriate equipment themselves.
Thing One July 3rd, 2007 01:47:00 AM
Thing One: Are you claiming, then, that anything that is profitable, as long as it is not directly contrary to the law, is automatically morally acceptable?
I think most of us agree that patent holders' rights are important. We just don't all agree that that means there's nothing patent holders can do with those rights that's immoral even if legal. AVID could have chosen to force those infringing its patent rights to pay license fees; instead, they chose to use those rights to obstruct market access to something that enhanced pet safety--even though pet safety is the much-touted purpose that AVID claims for its services.
And pet owners who have their pets chipped in order to get their pets back if they're ever lost, _do_ _not_ have an interest in having their pets' chips encrypted so that they can be read by the scanners of only one company. They want their pets' chips to be readable by any shelter or veterinary clinic where their pet might be taken--and they are encouraged by _both_ AVID and HomeAgain to believe that that's the case. (And HomeAgain at least does not encrypt its chips, so that AVID scanners _can_ read them if AVID wants them to.)
Your razors-and-blades analogy, and the assumption that it means AVID's tactics are acceptable, assumes that shaving and pet safety have the same moral and emotional significance for people. I have to tell you, for most people, they don't. But even if you think they are, I have a different analogy for you. I just bought a new collar and leash for my dog. Partly, I wanted something pretty, for a pretty little dog. But I also wanted good quality. I bought Lupine. Lupine guarantees its stuff for life--even if the cause of "failure" is that the dog chewed the leash. And by "guarantee," I mean "replace for free." Now, if the dog chews through the leash, and the owner left it someplace where the dog _could_ chew through it, that's not Lupine's fault; it's not a failure of the materials or manufacturing process. But do you think maybe they make some extra sales with that guarantee? Do you think maybe they generate some goodwill, translating into excellent word-of-mouth and _more_ sales, when they really do replace chewed leashes for free? Do you think there might be some _commercial_ _value_ to thinking about what the customer really wants, and finding a way to satisfy that need?
The stated missions of animal shelters should require them to equip themselves with scanners able to read all chips. However, their mission also requires them to feed the animals in their care, provide veterinary care for them. screen potential adopters, and do a lot more with severely limited funds. The universal scanners are expensive, and they need to feed the animals. And they've been _given_ scanners--scanners whose limitations, as Dr. Patty has explained, most of them don't fully understand, and which AVID has not been jumping up and down to call to their attention.
Sorry, Thing One, but I don't buy into the notion that the onlly entities not responsible for the moral consequences of their choices are mucking huge corporations.
Lis July 3rd, 2007 09:53:00 AM
Why is there always someone like this? They think they make others 'think' or are pushing the issues, but really, they are just flamers. It's best to ignore them, as enlightenment is not what they are looking for.
Yawn!
Amy in Cambridge July 3rd, 2007 01:11:00 PM
Dr. Khuly, maybe you are planning on addressing this in a future post, but do you think pets should be implanted with HomeAgain and AVID both? Mine have HomeAgain, which I used to the think was the chip that could be universally detected. What have you done, or will do in the future, with your pets? Also, as just a curious aside, are 'ya gonna chip the goat? And can I watch while you do? Hee!
Cardimom July 3rd, 2007 03:16:00 PM
Lis,
Like I said, I'll stake out the moral high ground around patents. If you aren't comfortable with that as "the moral high ground", how about this: look at drugs. Should a drug maker drop its patent rights because its drug is useful and lives are at stake? Some people, governments, and NGOs argue that it should. I disagree with them, believing that the public sector has other priorities-- say, housing and education and applied public health, for example-- and will not be able to do anything approximating industry's investment in research and development. It's a harder argument: the AVID chip hooplah is about the non-working animals of an affluent people, but where we're going to get antibiotics next decade is a problem for everyone, affluent or destitute.
Anyway, what about the shelters? Today if a shelter can't afford what a reasonable person might describe as due diligence in looking for chips or tatoos...dogs with well-done tatooing die in shelters, too... should that shelter be in business? Shouldn't a true animal lover give until it hurts and/or work to put under-resourced shelters out of business? The county shelter near me has the appropriate equipment and trains workers to use it. What about yours? If it doesn't, an outraged letter might turn that situation around.
Thing One July 3rd, 2007 10:51:00 PM
The shelter where I volunteer has both scanners, the Avid and Home Again; both were donated. The Avid scanner came from the company, as our shelter vet uses their chip. The Home again scanner was donated by the estate of a deceased veterinarian whose practice was liquidated after his death. Do I think that this shelter should be out of business because we are under-funded and cannot afford to buy the latest technology? HELL no!! Of our annual budget of over $400,000, only $45,000 is from public (taxpayer) funds. How far do you think that would go toward heating and cooling the building, and feeding and providing care for over 3000 animals a year; much less salaries and benefits for employees? But we are the only game in town. If we closed, should the local police simply put a bullet into every stray they find?
But no, we continue to operate and rely heavily on donations, fund-raisers, and a core group of devoted volunteers such as myself. And we scrounge whatever we can from local businesses, such as torn bags and dented cans of food and cleaning supplies (which said businesses can,in turn, write off as a business loss). The staff and volunteers routinely buy and donate supplies, since every dollar we do not have to spend on daily operations is a dollar that can be spent on the animals. I routinely peruse dollar stores for dog and cat toys, and also negotiate with local stores to donate (or steeply discount) same, which I then buy and donate.
Our surgical suite has equipment comparable to that of private vets, since a couple of us volunteers are nurses. One nurse (who works in OR) was able to get a used anesthesia machine, and when the ER where I work gets new equipment, I either try to get the used equipment donated, or go dumpster-diving when the used stuff is discarded. (That is why we now have two IV pumps and two cardiac monitors).
So, that said, should we close our doors and allow tthe public and the animals we serve to simply fend for themselves because we aren't well funded? I vote no.
Shellie July 4th, 2007 01:44:00 AM
Thing One, most animal shelters are struggling non-profits doing the best they can on extremely limited resources. They _must_ prioritize, and if their decisions regarding chip scanners aren't always correct, well, rational people have to bear in mind the fact that AVID is actively promoting confusion on the subject.
Pharmaceutical companies are large, highly profitable corproations--practically a license to print money, in fact. While the expense of developing a new drug is exaggerated, it's quite high, and pharmaceutical executives certainly do take an approach toward the question of "how much profit is enough" that certainly doesn't mark them out as obvious candidates for sainthood. And yet, somehow or other, pharmaceutical companies DO find a way to donate fairly substantial amounts of drugs and medications to those unable to pay for them. And while they obscure the question of exactly how much of their "development" costs are in fact post-development marketing costs, they don't engage in advertising that encourages people to get all gooey-eyed about the Altruistic Public Service they do simply by developing and selling their products for a profit. Gooey-eyedness is directed towards their charitable give-away programs.
AVID wants us to get all gooey-eyed over their core profit-making activity, described as "making pets safe," while engaging in marketing and business tactics that actually make pets _less_ safe than if they were more honest about their tactics. Distributing free scanners that could not even detect HomeAgain chips, after the expectation has been built that AVID scanners not only detect but read HomeAgain chips, has undoubtedly result in HomeAgain-chipped lost pets being at best adopted out to families other than the loving ones that had them chipped, at worst being euthanise because an overcrowded, underfunded shelter couldn't keep the "unchipped, unidentifiable" animal any longer. How many of those deaths are acceptable, on the grounds that it's more profitable for AVID and profit is the ultimate moral high ground? Is it acceptable if one of the pets euthanized for that reason is someday YOUR lost pet?
No, really, I want an answer to that question. Is it okay with you if, because of AVID's entirely legal and profitable business tactics, _your_ _lost_ _pet_ is euthanized?
Lis July 5th, 2007 09:53:00 AM
Lis,
That really would be an awkward situation, wouldn't it? If my pet were lost and euthanised, it would be because a shelter worker either failed to scan, or scanned incompetently and missed the AVID chip, or perhaps because a shelter worker was so crazed by anti-corporate bloodlust that he, she, or it is purposefully killing AVID-chipped animals. I'm not sure which of these three possibilities would be AVID's fault? All three would suggest the shelter might need a management review and perhaps shutting down, though.
When Banfield was distributing scanners in my area that would miss the AVID chip frequency, citizens here (for example, me) moved to ensure the county shelter was prepared to scan at both frequencies.
I said the high moral ground is around preserving intellectual property. That isn't necessarily related to profit. Some of the richest harvesters of licensing fees are non-profits.
Don't think that the pharmaceutical companies aren't being gooey-eyed or are somehow failing to milk the PR value from developing world give-aways: they are. You're just not in the right demographic to see it.
Thing One July 5th, 2007 11:26:00 PM
If "Thing One" knows a "brightish engineering-bound 10th grader", then I'd love to have directions on how to build my own universal microchip reader. I have access to RadioShack, but not the science background, and I can't find any instructions on the Internet. I did find a true universal reader which could read American and all other microchips for $280 though, so that 10th grader could save me a ton of money. Really, I follow directions very well, so just give me the instructions and I'll build a scanner for anyone who wants one.
I run a small nonprofit shelter and I receive about $200 in cash donations in an entire year, if I'm lucky. My "funding" is also known as "my paycheck from my regular job". No microchip companies have offered me free scanners, and I certainly don't have anyone to donate a universal one to me.
Leigh-Ann July 7th, 2007 09:30:00 AM
Our Kennel Club recently took AKC up on their offer of the "newer, smaller" microchop. I just opened a box and they are Trovan chips. We have the Universal Scanner that reads both AVIC and HomeAgain chips and I just tried it on the Trovan chips. It does NOT even read that they exist!! Now this means that all the shelters, kennel clubs, breeders and others will NOT know this animal is even chipped!!
This is VERY disturbing to me as our Kennel Club offers multiple chip clinics to ensure the safety and return of our and our communities animals. Now to know that NONE of the local shelters will be able to read these chips, I am hesitant to use them. I, as a breeder, just bought some as well. Do I want to put these in my puppies knowing that they can not be read by most shelters? I think not.
I have not been able to locate a scanner that reads the Trovan, HomeAgain and AVID Chips. Anybody know if they exist?
Sherrie Petty July 8th, 2007 12:16:00 PM
Sherrie: They do exist. In fact, the one pictured above purports to be an example .Check out this site if you'd like to call them and make sure they detect Trovans. I know they read all encrypted AVIDs and HomeAgains as well as all ISOs. Check anyway:
http://www.pettravelstore.com/store-pet-friendly-s...
BTW, the scanners Bayer is distributing with its new ISO chip is also being marketed as universal readers.
Dr. Patty Khuly July 8th, 2007 06:41:00 PM
This series is VERY enlightening and comes at a PERFECT time as I was just at the vet to get my pet microchipped for a possible relocation to the UK. According to UK procedure, my pet must have an ISO chip, which my vet does not have. I was instructed to find and purchase an ISO chip myself (I was given AVIDs number as a possibility) and he would implant it.
SO, Dr. Patty, I eagerly await Part 4 of this series...what do you recommend? As I understand it, only AVID and Crystal make ISO chips...and as AVID has been so irresponsible, I hesitate to purchase from them. Should I try to track down a Crystal one instead? Thanks again for this great series.
Glenbogle July 12th, 2007 02:50:00 AM
I find the conversation a bit ridiculous. Business is business and private enterprise has and will always be based upon money and sales...nothing new here.
I give no creedence to the argument that scanners cost money, cause every shelter is again, run according to business practice. There is not one single excuse for each and every shelter to have available to them either a reader for EVERY type of chip made or a Universal reader. In the grand scheme of things, these are very minimal costs to the shelter and should be a requirement for staying in business. We are not talking thousands of dollars here, I see no excuse that would hold water for me. Scanners are pretty reasonably priced.....having one or 3 will not break the bank.
Sorry guys, that's my 2 cents.
vikki July 14th, 2007 07:47:00 PM
how much would a micro-chip hand held scanner cost.,and where can i find one.
lakay ellis April 20th, 2009 12:03:58 PM
DDos Protection DDos Protection
Mr.cool October 12th, 2009 03:13:10 AM
However mean your life is, tiffany jewelry meet it and live it do not shun it and call it hard discount tiffany jewelry unt tiffany jewelry It is not so bad as you are.It looks poorest when you are richest.
tiffany jewelry November 12th, 2009 11:28:24 PM
teresa: as a member of an earlier generation, this fish story caught my eye. i read it when i subscribed to the walrus, and scrolled through your sight. i have had friends who raise fish, and i have always had dogs, and or cats. it was refreshing to hear that not everyone considers animals as acoutrements, worn or shown as assessories to sad and meaninless lives. cherishing people and animals and the world in general would go a long way to rectifying our problems. and how refreshing that so many people cared enough to help out. cheap wholesale clothing , mac cosmetics , gucci shoes , p90x
dasfda December 14th, 2009 03:04:00 AM
my frindbuyahandbag,ilikeitsomuch,shetellsmeifiwanttobuy,tohere:<a href="http://www.byreplica.com">replica handbags </a>,<a
href="http://www.byreplica.com">louis vuitton
outlet</a>believemeisbelieveyourself!
E December 16th, 2009 11:03:48 PM
Links London Necklaces may be the best presents for lovers. Links of London Jewelry is high quality and affordable price here. Cheap Links of london will make you interested and surprised.
Miller January 14th, 2010 08:12:09 PM
Links London Gift store is your best Links of London silver Jewellery online store. We have added numerous Links of London jewellery for our customers at hot price. Select your favorite please!
UK store January 20th, 2010 09:27:48 PM
Add Commment