Kodak Markets Optical Marker as RFID Alternative

The health-care industry is traditionally slow to embrace new technology, according to Michael Furukawa, an assistant professor of health and management policy at Arizona State University's W.P. Carey School of Business. "Typically, they follow the mainstream technology," he says.

For that reason, Furukawa says, a solution allowing the continued use of the ubiquitous bar-code labeling might be widely embraced by drug companies and hospitals. However, he adds, "What I worry about is proprietary technology. It locks you into a vendor and doesn't allow you much flexibility." Despite that, he says, "Given that RFID hasn't penetrated the health industry that rapidly, there might be a case for something like this."

Kodak, Powell says, "is not trying to offer a complete e-pedigree solution. We are trying to use what is already in place [bar coding] and make it airtight. Instead of implementing an embryonic technology such as RFID, we're providing an easy way to use 1- or 2-D bar codes with authentication." He adds that, "This is a gap filler as RFID works its way into the mainstream."

Powell estimates the cost at about 1 cent per item when labels are ordered in large quantities (hundreds of millions). The readers and software to operate them are included in that cost, he says. However, says Michael Liard, research director of RFID and contactless technology at ABI Research, the Traceless System's line-of-sight requirement still makes it a more labor-intensive technology than RFID.

"It's a clear sign of innovation against counterfeiting," Liard says, "but you still have the line of sight, and that requires manual scanning. One of the advantages of RFID is reduced labor," since RFID reads do not require personnel to provide a clear line of sight.