FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232??

[a210210200]

Hmm, if they claim the fakes have micro-controller based chips shouldn't it be possible to fuzz them to check for any bootloaders that would allow for re-programming. More intensively you would have to de-lid the chip to access the not accessible programming pins which would put it right into the FUD territory.

It seems like the fakes are using mask ROM for their firmware, so no reprogramming would be possible.

That would make sense and it is total FUD then.

[Rufus]

So, once again, I see postings from forum users that initiated their account here on this forum a day or so after this "problem" became a PR issue.  These forum users have only commented in this thread and have no other postings in any other thread.  AND they "say" that-- "Oh no, we are not a paid shill for FTDI!  How could you say such a thing!".  Also, by the shear number of times the word "fake" is used in their postings, it leads me to believe that they are getting paid based on the number of times they use the word "fake"...

Grasping at straws there - at one time 1400 guests were reading this thread - directed here from hackaday and other sites that ran the story. Hardly surprising that some of them registered in order to join in the debate, perhaps the ones that felt most strongly about it happened to be on the side of the argument you don't like.

I'm sure Dave is pleased as punch with the publicity the forum and he has got from this shitstorm, this thread is currently at 114k views.

So, what so you day Rufus?  How about you pull your head out of FTDI's ass, and come over to *our* side?

I'll be staying on the side I think is right. What FTDI did is not that great but I don't think it was wrong or illegal. The few FTDI parts I have in equipment are fine and I have never designed one in so it hasn't caused me any problem.

The shitstorm has raised awareness of fake Chinese crap and made others look hard at their supply chains which I consider to be a good thing, it means I can worry a tiny bit less about fake parts and my and my customer's supply chains. From a purely selfish point of view I thank FTDI for what they have done.

On the fake/clone thing (not that it is relevant) if you think there are legitimate clones out there point me to a data sheet for one?

[a210210200]

The facts make your statement flawed. So instead of attempting to counter my statements you just keep saying the same thing that the device is physically dead when it isn't.

Prove it.

From the user perspective the device is fake the internet made that so abundantly clear. (Literally simple fact is the fake device is not broken)

By what standard? You're making the assumption that they automatically know. I doubt, given your circular logic that would make an ancient theist proud, you have the omniscience to grant every living being this particular knowledge. Please prove as a philosophical universal how everyone knows this. Otherwise, you have nothing to go on.

A better example would be ....

"Let me just go ahead and answer a question you didn't ask, so I can be right." Not "here is why your analogy is flawed," but "You see when you frame it in a way that lets me win..." - You must be observing the US politician's "That's a very interesting question, and now let me lead to somewhere away from the issue" methodology.

If you like simple questions then:

Is the device (Fake chip) physically damaged?

If the end user plugs in the device, does it operate as they expect or as intended? Yes, or no?

No, it does not operate as the user expects...

QED.
Different mechanisms for the same net result: something that doesn't work.

As to,
"What is the cost/time for replacing a bearing on an engine?
Can a physical bearing be downloaded into a broken engine automatically?"

You're free to add all sorts of conditions you wish to rationalize it, plenty of southerners did the same when it came to lynching black people.

At the end of the day, the question you refuse to answer, and respond with meaningless with counter questions, is that for the end user, neither function. You cannot refute this, so you just go on and on in circles.

Simple questions not answered so it is pretty clear you don't have an answer.

No one comes with "automatic" knowledge about a fake FTDI chip but you know google is very easy to use. Type in "FTDI" and what do you get on the top of the page. Is google really that hard to use? Do I have to pray to google..........

Answer the questions first and actually quote the full thing instead of cutting it off.

You didn't answer the question with a yes/no. (You are free to extend your answer) What the user expects can be updated by something called the news. If the device is actually killed is not a exception but a fact (that it isn't killed).

You answered another question does it work as a user used to expect. Calling kettle black basically now.

It does work with other software FTDI has no obligation to work with the chip and assigning it another non-conflict value is not illegal as modifying PID/VID is simple and non-destructive. Linux can pick it up without dropping a beat and microsoft users have to run a third party tool to bypass FTDI's checks.

I did answer the double question (You just quoted me answering it) No the user does not expect it to be fake, and Yes it does work as intended by the driver.

Answer the questions directly. You added a combo question by having an or in the question itself so I answered in two parts one for each option. My questions are simple

Is the device physically damaged?
Is the device not still communicating with other software?
Does the device require physical repair?

The driver disabled/revoked access to FTDI's drivers but this is intended behavior and just as HDCP does that to devices NVram with revocation lists so can FTDI. You never agreed to any EULA when you bought a TV, HDMI switch, disk yet the disc and render a device functionally useless to the user. (It still "works" you just have to bypass HDCP)

[mamalala]

In the USA, we go by the UCC [Uniform Commercial Code], which [basically] says that both parties must be aware of all of the terms of an agreement, and that both parties must benefit from the agreement, and that both parties must enter into the agreement will full knowledge and consent.  If one or more of these requirements are missing, the agreement will [most likely] be easily nullified in court.

You also cannot sell someone a product, and then [later] inform them that the product that they already paid for [and they expected to "just work"] won't work unless they agree to some contractual relationship-- that is very close to "compelling to contract", which is a felony-- and is only alleviated if you offer their money back if they don't want to agree to the terms.

So. shrink-wrap licensing and EULA's are very close to being criminal let alone being almost unenforceable in court.

Thanks, good information. Wasn't aware that the US handles shrink-wrap stuff pretty much the same as the EU, what with those license styles are predominantly comming from there.

Greetings,

Chris

[sunnyhighway]

The way how the civilized world handles a random violation:





The way how FTDI would have handled such violation.

[mamalala]

Sorry, EULA means I have to gain some rights as well as well as an ability to decline the terms (It is also for software not a verbal agreement). So I regret but I have to decline to agree.

Now, now. You really want to have your cake and eat it too? Or are you just acting that stupid? On one side you defend what FTDI did, babbling about how that is in their license, and that user agreed to an EULA from Microsoft for updates, etc., completely ignoring that the user was never made aware of any of the terms that are attached to the automatic driver update for the FTDI stuff, and thus never had a chance to decline those terms. And now you want to weasel yourself out of paying me according to my EULA by telling me that you haven't been made aware of the terms i set and thus had no ability to decline?

You are nothing more than a prime example of corporate hypocrisy. If you demand that other stick to some imaginary legalese, you better be prepared to stick to such stuff yourself as well. Declining to do so, while wanting other to do so is, well, "stupid" doesn't even begin to capture it.

But at least i have to thank you for making it blatantly clear that you are just an idiotic shill.

Greetings,

Chris

[geppa.dee]

On the fake/clone thing (not that it is relevant) if you think there are legitimate clones out there point me to a data sheet for one?

Amyk showed one example, days ago:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/ftdi-driver-kills-fake-ftdi-ft232/msg535577/#msg535577

They have a datasheet but unfortunately it's just not available to their customers (7th link):
http://www.corechip-sz.com/endownload.asp?classid=108

Wraper also showed one in the next message after Amyk's. A different one, with a linked and downloadable datasheet.

Presumably both of those get.... "molested" by FTDI's latest driver yet are only functional clones, not counterfeits. No idea about the ages involved so the gravity of the... "despicable act" is debatable. Mind you, not the despicability per se.

[a210210200]

In the USA, we go by the UCC [Uniform Commercial Code], which [basically] says that both parties must be aware of all of the terms of an agreement, and that both parties must benefit from the agreement, and that both parties must enter into the agreement will full knowledge and consent.  If one or more of these requirements are missing, the agreement will [most likely] be easily nullified in court.

You also cannot sell someone a product, and then [later] inform them that the product that they already paid for [and they expected to "just work"] won't work unless they agree to some contractual relationship-- that is very close to "compelling to contract", which is a felony-- and is only alleviated if you offer their money back if they don't want to agree to the terms.

So. shrink-wrap licensing and EULA's are very close to being criminal let alone being almost unenforceable in court.

Thanks, good information. Wasn't aware that the US handles shrink-wrap stuff pretty much the same as the EU, what with those license styles are predominantly comming from there.

Greetings,

Chris

Thanks DiligentMinds for the law directly,

You agreed to automatic updates including third party microsoft signed updates (full consent, knowledge) it was pretty clear to me when I install windows. (Sometimes I do disable auto updates to prevent just such issues with drivers being updated automatically potentially breaking thing). So full consent given for auto updates. Revocation of hardware is not something that even needs to be listed in a EULA. (DHCP demonstrates this with its auto/silent revocation system that does modify user hardware and can functionally make a part incompadible like FTDI's driver)

You also demonstrated how mamalala example is highly flawed because we never had a mutual benefit. (Microsoft automatic updates are a service and Microsoft gets info on your machine and that windows ecosystem is updated properly and you get convenience) FTDI's clause about only genuine parts being safe doesn't even need to be there as fake parts are illegal and HDCP has no such EULA that you even click on and still can carry out far harder to bypass (just a tiny bit harder) hardware modifying revocation. In addition to that the fake parts themselves are not irreparably damage in any way shape or form and a linux update can handle it without skipping a beat.

So you nullified mamalala example but not microsoft's.

Microsoft provides clear choices to users and does not hide the options as they are very visible choices. FTDI is using a system like HDCP which doesn't even have EULA.

[mamalala]

Microsoft provides WHQL certified drivers signed by microsoft. If you don't like microsoft's services they have the option to disable that service at install in a nice big (want automatic updates or not)

FTDI doesn't even need an EULA to stop counterfeits from functioning it is very similar to HDCP disabling your purchased hardware forever without you agreeing to install an revocation list on inserting a new bluray.

If you sign an agreement with your landlord and the landlord has signed other contracts you very well could get tied up in a legal mess automatically. Legal systems are not totally isolated entering a relationship with one group can cause you to be related to many other groups.

Again, what a load of bullshit. Microsoft is not the one who wrote the malicious code, they merely distributed it. Any EULA one has with MS can only refer to their services and code and other terms.  It can never, ever, refer to any terms, conditions, contracts or EULA's from third parties sight unseen. That's simply not how it works.

And nope, a contract mith my landlord has in no way any legal meaning as far as third parties are concerned. For example, part of that contract is stuff  like wastewater, for which i pay a small fee every month, depending on fresh water usage. However, i can go ahead and dispute the amount requested for that by my landlord and get her to chose a cheaper option. And in any case, i have to be made aware of the terms of that stuff, which happens every year with the "Nebenkostanabrechnung" for me, where every item for such stuff is listed, so that i have a chance to dispute them.

What happened with the auto-installed FTDI driver isn't even close to that. It was silently installed onto the machines of users, without showing them any terms or license for that driver. None at all. Heck, the license language in the .inf file even changed between previous versions and that particular version, So even if someone bothered to dig into the .inf file and read that blurb before, and agree to it, those terms had changed without the user knowing anything about it.

Your attempts to whitewash this crap are beyond idiotic. Care to try that thing called "reality" any time soon? If so, feel free to get back to me with something that resembles a sane argument.

Greetings,

Chris

[XFDDesign]

Simple questions not answered so it is pretty clear you don't have an answer.

Given your history, I suppose you certainly have experience to state this.

Is the device completely disintegrated? No.
Is the device usable (as you're inferring) by the end user? Also no.
Is there a difference as far as the end user is concerned? Still no.
QED.

No one comes with "automatic" knowledge about a fake FTDI chip but you know google is very easy to use. Type in "FTDI" and what do you get on the top of the page. Is google really that hard to use? Do I have to pray to google..........

Again, you inject "FTDI" as a prerequisite. I have a device in my hand, tell me what components are in it. Use google or any other tool to tell me whats in it. You can't. You require a minimum level of knowledge that not every end user has.

Answer the questions first and actually quote the full thing instead of cutting it off.

Ah the demands of the loser, "I won't actually address the root questions you're presenting, but man are you a insufferable twit for not answering my questions!" As to "cutting the rest off," your needless qualifiers don't justify the ends.

You didn't answer the question with a yes/no. (You are free to extend your answer) What the user expects can be updated by something called the news. If the device is actually killed is not a exception but a fact (that it isn't killed).

You answered another question does it work as a user used to expect. Calling kettle black basically now.

You realize with this last sentence, then if nothing else, that you're admitting you're trying to dodge the issue? When you yourself are not going to bother to close the first point before raising the next question, I get to do the same. Your presumed moral high ground does not exist here.

"If the device is actually killed is not an exception but a fact that it isn't killed" - taking this at face value, you apparently live in a subjective world where a device can be dead and not dead at the same time. What I'll assume, given the usual banging on you do, is that because you have the capacity to fix it, just as a mechanic has the means to repair an engine, you conclude that everyone else can too. Which does not follow at all.

I did answer the double question (You just quoted me answering it) No the user does not expect it to be fake, and Yes it does work as intended by the driver.

if one device stops working, and another device stops working (guess which one is the engine, and which is the semiconductor), to the end user, both are in an equal state of non-operation. The quote I copied, agreed with this, which means every other bit of your rambling is moot. Pointless. Your entire basis requires that your answer to there being a difference was not 'no,' but 'yes.'

Answer the questions directly. You added a combo question by having an or in the question itself so I answered in two parts one for each option. My questions are simple

Is the device physically damaged?
Is the device not still communicating with other software?
Does the device require physical repair?

1. See top; no.
2. What is "other software"
3. Just to be pedantic. Technically yes, given that EEPROM is a physical thing and in one physical state it's inoperable, in another it's functional and it depends on 'repairing' the bits to be in the right electrical state.

You're welcome to cake on anything else you want, but your feelings on the matter are irrelevant to the reality that the end user sees: the fact that between one inoperable device and another, they're both dead as far as the end user is concerned. They are not "miles apart."

[KA3YAN]

My issue is that there are few alternatives to the FTDI chip.  The Prolific chip suffers even worse counterfeiting than the FTDI chip.  I have used both and can positively state that the FTDI chip is more stable across a wider range of environments than the Prolific chip. 

It's easy to say that I will no longer use the FTDI chipset, but it's a whole other ballgame to actually put it into practice.

[a210210200]

Sorry, EULA means I have to gain some rights as well as well as an ability to decline the terms (It is also for software not a verbal agreement). So I regret but I have to decline to agree.

Now, now. You really want to have your cake and eat it too? Or are you just acting that stupid? On one side you defend what FTDI did, babbling about how that is in their license, and that user agreed to an EULA from Microsoft for updates, etc., completely ignoring that the user was never made aware of any of the terms that are attached to the automatic driver update for the FTDI stuff, and thus never had a chance to decline those terms. And now you want to weasel yourself out of paying me according to my EULA by telling me that you haven't been made aware of the terms i set and thus had no ability to decline?

You are nothing more than a prime example of corporate hypocrisy. If you demand that other stick to some imaginary legalese, you better be prepared to stick to such stuff yourself as well. Declining to do so, while wanting other to do so is, well, "stupid" doesn't even begin to capture it.

But at least i have to thank you for making it blatantly clear that you are just an idiotic shill.

Greetings,

Chris

You are made very aware of automatic updates it is part of windows and you had the option to disable it then and you still do have full control over it now. Turning it off is how to disagree with that aspect of Microsoft's services. They cannot rip out all the software that does windows update as it is too integrated into the OS.



You can decline you can even prevent automatic device driver updates. It isn't hidden or hard to change.

I did decline but your contract had nothing to say what happens if I decline because I can't delete your message or remove it from the forum.

Your legal contract is highly flawed and ignores the basic rules of contract law.

Ad hominem attack just make your statements appear all the more fallacious.

[mamalala]

You are made very aware of automatic updates it is part of windows and you had the option to disable it then and you still do have full control over it now. Turning it off is how to disagree with that aspect of Microsoft's services. They cannot rip out all the software that does windows update as it is too integrated into the OS.

You can decline you can even prevent automatic device driver updates. It isn't hidden or hard to change.

I did decline but your contract had nothing to say what happens if I decline because I can't delete your message or remove it from the forum.

Your legal contract is highly flawed and ignores the basic rules of contract law.

Ad hominem attack just make your statements appear all the more fallacious.

To make your line of argument even remotely work, you need to provide the following:

1) Where does the EULA between a user an Microsoft say that by using the automatic update/driver function the user automatically agrees to any T&C, licenses, etc.  attached to third party upgrades and drivers. That is, software that is not property of Microsoft.

2) Where does said EULA state that any such T&C's or licenses are valid because said updates/drivers are distributed through a function of the Windows OS.

3) Where does said EULA state that any such terms, even if the are pertaining to Microsoft software or drivers, are automatically accepted by the user by the mere act of having the auto-update/driver feature enabled, while the user is never shown any such terms/licenses for the software/driver pieces in question?

4) Even if there would be such a clause or clauses in the Microsoft EULA, please provide the laws that in turn acknowledge that this even can be done.

Unless you can provide that  info, your arguments are moot.

Also, you don't know what my contract (which, by your reasining, you agreed to by having access to my stuff through a third party channel) says or does not say. Like, you know, a user getting an update or driver through the auto-stuff of Windows doesn't know what the specific terms, license, contract, etc. for a particular piece of third-party-software or -driver that came through it was.

Again, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Greetings,

Chris

[mamalala]

Just because HDCP does something bad, doesn't make it right [or legal] for FTDI to do it.

Don't worry, that HDCP stuff they bring up is nothing but a red herring meant to distract from the real issue.

Greetings,

Chris

[a210210200]

Simple questions not answered so it is pretty clear you don't have an answer.

Given your history, I suppose you certainly have experience to state this.

Is the device completely disintegrated? No.
Is the device usable (as you're inferring) by the end user? Also no.
Is there a difference as far as the end user is concerned? Still no.
QED.

No one comes with "automatic" knowledge about a fake FTDI chip but you know google is very easy to use. Type in "FTDI" and what do you get on the top of the page. Is google really that hard to use? Do I have to pray to google..........

Again, you inject "FTDI" as a prerequisite. I have a device in my hand, tell me what components are in it. Use google or any other tool to tell me whats in it. You can't. You require a minimum level of knowledge that not every end user has.

Answer the questions first and actually quote the full thing instead of cutting it off.

Ah the demands of the loser, "I won't actually address the root questions you're presenting, but man are you a insufferable twit for not answering my questions!" As to "cutting the rest off," your needless qualifiers don't justify the ends.

You didn't answer the question with a yes/no. (You are free to extend your answer) What the user expects can be updated by something called the news. If the device is actually killed is not a exception but a fact (that it isn't killed).

You answered another question does it work as a user used to expect. Calling kettle black basically now.

You realize with this last sentence, then if nothing else, that you're admitting you're trying to dodge the issue? When you yourself are not going to bother to close the first point before raising the next question, I get to do the same. Your presumed moral high ground does not exist here.

"If the device is actually killed is not an exception but a fact that it isn't killed" - taking this at face value, you apparently live in a subjective world where a device can be dead and not dead at the same time. What I'll assume, given the usual banging on you do, is that because you have the capacity to fix it, just as a mechanic has the means to repair an engine, you conclude that everyone else can too. Which does not follow at all.

I did answer the double question (You just quoted me answering it) No the user does not expect it to be fake, and Yes it does work as intended by the driver.

if one device stops working, and another device stops working (guess which one is the engine, and which is the semiconductor), to the end user, both are in an equal state of non-operation. The quote I copied, agreed with this, which means every other bit of your rambling is moot. Pointless. Your entire basis requires that your answer to there being a difference was not 'no,' but 'yes.'

Answer the questions directly. You added a combo question by having an or in the question itself so I answered in two parts one for each option. My questions are simple

Is the device physically damaged?
Is the device not still communicating with other software?
Does the device require physical repair?

1. See top; no.
2. What is "other software"
3. Just to be pedantic. Technically yes, given that EEPROM is a physical thing and in one physical state it's inoperable, in another it's functional and it depends on 'repairing' the bits to be in the right electrical state.

You're welcome to cake on anything else you want, but your feelings on the matter are irrelevant to the reality that the end user sees: the fact that between one inoperable device and another, they're both dead as far as the end user is concerned. They are not "miles apart."

Is the device completely disintegrated? No.
Is the device usable (as you're inferring) by the end user? Also no.
Is there a difference as far as the end user is concerned? Still no.

You just answered yes to the device is physically damaged (also false it in no way is even remotely physically damaged)
You also just said it is unusable (false linux has an update already) and countless end user programs work with it)
You also said is there a different to the end user, well I'm an end user and I can tell the difference so you statement is false based on the mere existence of me an end user that doesn't agree with you, I detect fakes and report them as a responsible end user should.

See my previous posts you have script that uses FT_PROG, and a .py file that can work with it. You even have official FTDI instructions on how to change the PID/VID. So I proved your #2 answer so wrong and proved you don't actually read my posts as well but keep discounting what I'm saying.

The device is no longer compatible with FTDI's software that is normal HDCP does this and modifies user hardware silently and automatically.

The device itself still works and is not physically damaged in any sense. So no as an end user I would be able to tell the difference.

I admitted nothing just assuming your statement of deflection and you deflecting later it is a clear kettle black situation. Did I ever say I deflect? It is only you who claim this.

No the device is clearly functional it just doesn't work with FTDI's drivers anyone can make it work since linux will have a patch for it which people can I hope apply unless they are running totally unpatched systems which is dangerous. And for windows if people can't use google then thats a pretty big problem.

If your talking about some hypothetical end user that has no knowledge of anything computer related and has no idea what they are plugging in, then nothing is broken to them as they don't even know how to click on things or what the bubble is even saying let alone what they are holding and what it does or is supposed to do. For all they know that is what is supposed to happen. Seriously people can use google its easy to use doesn't require arcane rituals and is a pretty fundamental skill unless you don't have internet at which point automatic updates wouldn't even work.

Your making a fundamental logical fallacy to say I somehow do not count as an end user.

Answer this new question,
Don't we all count as end users, even though we differ on what we expect/think?

[a210210200]

Just because HDCP does something bad, doesn't make it right [or legal] for FTDI to do it.

Don't worry, that HDCP stuff they bring up is nothing but a red herring meant to distract from the real issue.

Greetings,

Chris

How so HDCP is not illegal and the revocation function works very similar to FTDIs system and has no user notification and is too very silent. An automatic update revokes a device by altering a nv memory to ban a product. It will even modify other products so that they too will not work with that product. The product if compliant will even store its own revocation itself.

[a210210200]

My questions are simple :

1) Is the device physically damaged?
2) Is the device not still communicating with other software?
3) Does the device require physical repair?

The driver disabled/revoked access to FTDI's drivers but this is intended behavior and just as HDCP does that to devices NVram with revocation lists so can FTDI. You never agreed to any EULA when you bought a TV, HDMI switch, disk yet the disc and render a device functionally useless to the user. (It still "works" you just have to bypass HDCP)

1) Yes, the device was damaged.  The electrons in the EEPROM were moved around to make the device inoperable to non-FTDI drivers [i.e., *BSD's, Linix, etc.].

2) After FTDI intentionally damaged the device, it no longer communicates with legitimate non-FTDI drivers in Linux and the *BSD's.

3) Yes-- the device *can* be repaired, at considerable cost in time and labor, not to mention any tertiary financial damage that was done due to temporary loss of use of the device.

Just because HDCP does something bad, doesn't make it right [or legal] for FTDI to do it.

FTDI does not "own" the hardware, and regardless of whether it is a legal clone or a illegal counterfeit device [which the driver would not be able to distinguish], they have no right to render inoperative a device that is owned by the end-user and is useful for other purposes on other systems [Linux for example].

FTDI needs to release a *NEW* driver that both fixes the clone and/or "fake" devices that they damaged, and also [optionally] it can refuse to work with these devices once they have been repaired.  I think this would go a long way to repairing the PR damage that they did to their firm and their brand.

If there are counterfeit devices "in the wild", then there are proper legal remedies to find and punish the counterfeiters [and I would agree with that action].

I think FTDI should also issue a *real* heartfelt apology to all of the innocent end-users that were caught up in this debacle.

The various law enforcement agencies should also follow up to find out if any criminal wrongdoings need to be prosecuted, and the FTDI company should probably be fined for their illegal actions.

If all of that happens, then it might be possible over time to forgive FTDI and start using their parts again.

And FTDI-- if you're reading this post, please don't fire a "sacrificial programmer" in your driver department, and then have him "suicided"...

BUT-- continuously denying what they did, blaming others, and refusing to admit that they made a mistake will only add fuel to the fire.  FTDI should be on their knees begging for forgiveness-- not stomping around, arrogantly boasting that they did something "Good".  A good start for this would be a long heartfelt apology from the CEO of FTDI on YouTube.  They need to fix this, and fast...

1) Nope it is not physically damaged reprogramming the PID/VID is a valid and normal operation and is mutable and reversible.
2) FTDI has no legal obligation to make the fake device work with their driver, linux updated their code and third party tools exist (I already posted even the source for you here) to communicate, bypass, and correct the change if a user chooses to do so.
3) The device is not broken, it requires no physical repair, a fix is purely in software. (Great cost is laughable when free tools exist and linux will probably automatically handle it from here on out)

FTDI does own the driver and the driver can distinguish the fakes currently and the device is no inoperable it is just incompatible with FTDI's driver.

FTDI should have given the community warning and a tool to check for fakes before updating the driver so news stories will not be of surprised communities and people could talk it out before shit hit the fan so to speak.

Counterfeit devices are illegal and that is all that needs to be said. If a device uses its own driver, has its own completely independent brand but is better or exactly the same as FTDI's stuff just made all with their own work then that is perfectly good clone and if FTDI damaged that device which has no relation at all then that would be very very bad behavior and very likely illegal. (No good MFG would cause a VID/PID collision that is just horrible for USB in general even if not illegal, get their own number offer the same type of stuff for cheaper and people will flock to your company)

HDCP being bad doesn't make it illegal. Just like FTDI being bad doesn't make it illegal.

[a210210200]

Thanks DiligentMinds for the law directly,

You agreed to automatic updates including third party microsoft signed updates (full consent, knowledge) it was pretty clear to me when I install windows.

No, I run Linux, not Windows.  I didn't agree to *any* terms on a Windows machine.  If I loan my [legitimate clone] "FTDI-like" device to another user, and he plugs it into a Windows machine, and FTDI's drivers do something to render the device inoperable [back on my Linux machine], then I have been legally "damaged" because it will take time to troubleshoot and/or the problem, and/or money to buy a new "legitimate clone" device.  FTDI had no right to modify *MY* device.  They have every right to not allow their driver to talk to it, and could have done that without resorting to terrorism.

Note that the friend I loaned the cable to had no knowledge that the FTDI driver was going to do what it was going to do, so there was no intent, and he is without liability.  FTDI [on the other hand] was *well* aware of what they were doing, and so *ARE* liable for my damages, and thus I have "standing" in court to bring a lawsuit against them.

This is one of the reasons I switched to Linux-- I simply grew weary of fighting with fascist companies like FTDI, and their unilateral decisions to run my life the way they want.  So, I said goodbye to Windows in 2005 and never looked back.

The problem comes in when I am designing something for a client that requires a USB-serial converter.  Prior to FTDI showing their penchant for fascist behavior, I would have designed in one of their parts [as I have in the past].  Now, I will use another part [probably the CP2104]-- and it is even less expensive-- which I would never have found out if FTDI did not open my eyes to their true nature.

I think that the decision maker in FTDI that ordered this idiocy should probably go to jail-- maybe just a year or two-- just as an example to other company executives that are thinking along the same lines...  Only time will tell if this happens.

A user who hands you something that was updated on their machine did agree to it however. The fact you did not agree to it doesn't matter. A rational thinking user would realize that something bad happened and would try to figure out what happened. And if they are any bit tech savvy (plus what kind of non-technical user needs a random RS-232 cable very little modern consumer stuff has a serial port on it) they will figure out what it was. (Its all over google)

As I said I run all OSes and do university teaching labs with some designs using FTDI chips and MSP430s and if you lent it to me I would detect the fake and give you a real one back. It is the nice thing to do I could even re-work the exact cable with a real part if you wanted. End users need to be able to detect fakes otherwise counterfeiting will just get worse. FTDI has done the wrong thing in surprising everyone and with their horrible PR response.

The person who you lent it to did agree to the microsoft agreement including transfer of liability. So they are aware of the automatic updates and what it does. I can tell you with great certainty that basically no chance of a criminal case.

Using the HDCP example if you lent your cheap HDMI switch to someone who needed it for a party and they stuck a brand new bluray that updated the switch NV memory to ban the device you would be returned with a non-HDCP compatible switch and you would find it very hard to go after anyone as that is "feature" for HDCP.

[Rufus]

The devices were on life support provided by the illegal use of FTDI drivers, FTDI figured out how to and turned off the switch. I believe it was within their rights to do so. No one is stopping you resurrecting the corpses by writing some other drivers or using the legal ones on Linux.

The use wasn't illegal. Most people had the drivers installed automatically without being shown the EULA

I am not a lawyer. I find it hard to see how an EULA makes any difference. The drivers (like all software) are copyright. The copyright holder FTDI allow the use of their drivers under certain conditions. No agreement is required it is just a fact and using their drivers outside of those conditions is an illegal violation of their copyright. Not agreeing that you are aware of those conditions would at best only support a defence of ignorance for that violation.

[a210210200]

All of your arguments are irrelevant.  If FTDI modified my device in *ANY* way that costs me time and/or money to discover and/or remedy, then *I* have been [legally speaking] "damaged", and can sue FTDI for compensatory and/or punitive damages.  Because FTDI did this knowingly, then the punitive damages can be three times what the compensatory damages might be.

I think everyone that has a device that FTDI modified without authorization, should bring a lawsuit against FTDI-- not as a class action, but millions of individual lawsuits that FTDI will have to defend against.  This [of course] will BANKRUPT them-- probably a fitting end for a fascist company like FTDI.

HDCP modifies devices in the same way and is harder to bypass or fix and in the US is probably illegal to "fix". You have no control over the revocation system and HDCP can revoke legitimate and fake devices alike if they deem its key has been compromised or abused in some way. There is no court that they have to goto they just update a list of numbers that gets automatically written by HDCP ready devices (Which may even include the target devices).

You have no recourse basically other than to go after the seller and so on. The device is fake or deemed not compatible you can do whatever you want to use it outside of the FDTI/HDCP framework but to bypass it is a bit gray but very easy for FTDI's case and fairly easy on HDCP's case.

Again "yelling" in text statements doesn't make it true. You are always free to sue people for whatever you think but that does not ensure you will not be charged for fees and end up paying instead of getting anything in return.

[janoc]

And DMCA  Since when is DMCA applicable to a company in Scotland (UK) and laws broken e.g. in France, Germany or Netherlands?

Maybe you should look up the EU InfoSoc directive which also protects "Technological Protection Measures" and in some ways is more restrictive than the DMCA.

That is still not relevant, Rufus, sorry.

The directive text is here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML

a) The directive talks about "circumvention of effective technological measures" (btw, DMCA has the same requirement). That alone makes your theory wrong - VID/PID are not designed to act as a technological measure to prevent access to anything (let alone an effective one!), they are simply identifiers facilitating finding of a correct driver by the host. So your argument is falling apart right there.

b) The directive has provisions for interoperability

c) There is also section 48, so even if we accept that the borking of end-user's device is a "technological measure" in the sense of the directive, then:

Such legal protection should be provided in respect of technological measures that effectively restrict acts not authorised by the rightholders of any copyright, rights related to copyright or the sui generis right in databases without, however, preventing the normal operation of electronic equipment and its technological development. ...

d) The redress in case of a copyright violation has to be sought according to law - the directive leaves that to the individual countries to implement. E.g. in France that means sending cease&desists first, then a court action. There is *zero* provision for vigilantism and breaking of supposedly illegal stuff, no matter what the right owners may wish for. You call that "due process" in the US, I believe.

Rufus,  you have no clue what you are talking about and only grasping at straws. Better read (and understand) the stuff you are trying to use to support your arguments first next time.
Sorry man, no cigar. 

[markb82]

If you can agree that FTDI owns the driver IP, and you own the clone.  Then FTDI can modify the driver to not function with the clone.  They are not allowed to modify the clone to not work with the driver.  Pretty simple no?

[a210210200]

If you can agree that FTDI owns the driver IP, and you own the clone.  Then FTDI can modify the driver to not function with the clone.  They are not allowed to modify the clone to not work with the driver.  Pretty simple no?

FTDI like HDCP does not own the device yet it modifies them and it is allowed to do so. FTDI driver is just revoking the number. Its a joke to put it back (unlike HDCP revoking) but both modify a user's device automatically.

It isn't a nice thing to do but it isn't illegal. The mfg of the fake chips is doing very illegal stuff however.

A legal clone would use its own VCP driver and have no brand relation at all to FTDI other than it functions the same with completely cloned everything that another company put work into making.

[jancumps]

.... probably a fitting end for a fascist company like FTDI.

Godwin's law proven at last.

[a210210200]

The devices were on life support provided by the illegal use of FTDI drivers, FTDI figured out how to and turned off the switch. I believe it was within their rights to do so. No one is stopping you resurrecting the corpses by writing some other drivers or using the legal ones on Linux.

The use wasn't illegal. Most people had the drivers installed automatically without being shown the EULA

I am not a lawyer. I find it hard to see how an EULA makes any difference. The drivers (like all software) are copyright. The copyright holder FTDI allow the use of their drivers under certain conditions. No agreement is required it is just a fact and using their drivers outside of those conditions is an illegal violation of their copyright. Not agreeing that you are aware of those conditions would at best only support a defence of ignorance for that violation.

Ahhhhhhh.... NOW we are getting the to crux of the problem.  You see, it was *NOT* the "device" that is using the driver, it is the O/S that chose to associate that driver with the device.  This association was not intentionally done by the end-user [and in law, "intent" is almost everything].  The driver from FTDI CLEARLY has the ability to determine if it is communicating with a genuine FTDI device, and FTDI could have simply written the driver to refuse to work with non-FTDI devices.  That would have been perfectly legitimate.  BUT, FTDI took it too far-- they went on to actually *MODIFY* the non-FTDI device, which WAS NOT THEIR RIGHT TO DO-- and this modification rendered the device useless to LEGITIMATE drivers on Linux.  This, no doubt, probably at least cost the end-user some time, and possibly some money, and THAT my friend, gives them "standing" in court to sue the crap out of FTDI.

It really doesn't matter what the modification was, or whether it's reversible, or not.  If it cost the end-user time and/or money, then they were "damaged" by FDTI, and there are grounds for a lawsuit.

The *smart* move [for FTDI] would have been to have their driver simply ignore non-FTDI devices.  It looks like there are not so many "smart" people directing the company at FTDI.  Oops!

The device is using the driver it reports its ID to the computer so it can talk to the correct driver. The O/S is only acting to read the .inf file the driver has to match the two together. (This is what an operating system is supposed to do) The association is intentional by the counterfeiters because normal companies making real legal clones use other VCP drivers with their own numbers (even if not illegal to have colliding PID/VID values it is a very very bad idea to cause a collision intentionally) damage may very well occur in such a situation.

FTDI did a bad thing in revoking the device just like HDCP is bad but it isn't illegal.