FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232??

[mikeselectricstuff]

The pre 2.12 drivers did not have an EULA or limitations as far as I know

They did but it was hidden in the .INF files - I had a look through a few old sets of drivers and the "only for use with FTDI parts" condiiton has been in there for quite a few years

[Richard Crowley]

Whichever way you slice this, the handling of the situation is a major corporate debacle on the order of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal

It will possibly make Wikipedia's list of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Corporate_scandals

Witness, OTOH, what happened with the Intel Pentium FDIV bug...

Though rarely encountered by average users (Byte magazine estimated that 1 in 9 billion floating point divides with random parameters would produce inaccurate results), both the flaw and Intel's initial handling of the matter were heavily criticized. Intel ultimately recalled the defective processors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

It cost Intel 100s of millions of $$$ to replace all those CPU chips, even though not one in a million of the users would ever be affected by the problem.  Somehow I don't expect the same kind of response from FTDI.

[tbbw]

The pre 2.12 drivers did not have an EULA or limitations as far as I know

They did but it was hidden in the .INF files - I had a look through a few old sets of drivers and the "only for use with FTDI parts" condiiton has been in there for quite a few years

So in other words the user did not hafto agree to the eula it was a silent install with no prompt at all?
I can hardly say that is proof of the users consent on the eula at all if thats the case.

[Richard Crowley]

But in practical terms, it is not about "consent" or even "notification". It is about FTDI's deliberate boorish and destructive behavior.
They are going to have to hustle if they want avoid this becoming a major negative stain on their corporate reputation.
Whether they were morally in the right or not.

[Precipice]

In practical terms, OEMs already specifying FTDI chips into their products are likely to continue doing so, since their gear will continue to work fine, either because they have their own VID/PIDs and drivers, or because FTDI drivers have continued to work fine.
OEMs specifying (or allowing) knockoffs are likely to have a hard think - either stay as they were, move to a known vendor, whether that's FTDI or other (possibly going down the driverless CDC route), or some third option I can't think of at the moment. Maybe rip off FTDI's drivers, register a VID/PID (maybe orphaned, if they want it for free?) and deliver a driver / chip combo. Driver certification under modern Windows might be an issue? Those super-cheap 'how do they make it so cheap, and ship it for that?' widgets might cost an extra dollar.
The side effect of temporary (but severe) annoyance for some of the end purchasers of gear containing FTDI knockoffs - yeah, it's an annoyance, and seems to have been done hamfistedly. They're in no way FTDI customers, or probable future FTDI customers. There's a clear recovery route for the damaged hardware. Several, even, and more are likely (and scams based on them, no doubt - 'download FTDIfix.exe and run it as administrator, answer yes to all prompts'...).
However, from FTDI's point of view - isn't this a clear message? Buy legit chips, or stop using FTDI drivers and identification? It could surely have gone better, but I'm not seeing it as a calamity.

[mrflibble]

So in other words the user did not hafto agree to the eula it was a silent install with no prompt at all?
I can hardly say that is proof of the users consent on the eula at all if thats the case.

EULA is irrelevant up to a point, since local law trumps random legal droid vomit.

[x] I hereby agree to grant you the right to brutally murder me because I didn't properly read this sentence.

Nope, still illegal to brutally murder me. And likewise it's still illegal to cause property damages no matter what clever word permutation you crammed in the EULA.

[zapta]

On my OSX box I can connect USB/CDC devices without having to register any VID/PID.

Yay!
Remind me again what you're so incensed about? Is it that the knockoff silicon vendors chose to go the FTDI-clone route, rather than the CDC route?
(Note - I really don't mind at all if you don't remind me. This entire thing is a typical internet storm in a teacup, and I'll be happy when it becomes a footnote, just like the Prolific driver episode).

Still missing the point.

"For the Mac you simply need to report your device class correctly and the driver scan picks up the correct drivers. (Windows ignores the device class which is why you need to supply the .inf file)."

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1176939/do-i-need-to-write-my-own-host-side-usb-driver-for-a-cdc-device

Windows does not provide a generic USB/Serial no-driver-out-of-the-box experience as it does with keyboards, mice and flash disks. Having this capability will solve the FTDI cloning issue.

[Precipice]

Windows does not provide a generic USB/Serial no-driver-out-of-the-box experience as it does with keyboards, mice and flash disks. Having this capability will solve the FTDI cloning issue.

Doesn't this still rely on on device manufacturers stopping pretending (via VID/PID) to be an FTDI chip? Hence actually spending money to register?
If they don't, they'll still get looked up as an FTDI part, and still get FTDI drivers - or am I missing the point?

[Precipice]

Are they listed on any stock exchange? I've been looking to see if the driver update had any impact on their share prices but can't find anything. What are they a privately owned company?

Line 1 of their Wikipedia entry...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTDI
Future Technology Devices International, commonly known by its abbreviation FTDI, is a Scottish privately held semiconductor device company, specializing in Universal Serial Bus (USB) technology.[1]

privately held - not listed.

[zapta]

Windows does not provide a generic USB/Serial no-driver-out-of-the-box experience as it does with keyboards, mice and flash disks. Having this capability will solve the FTDI cloning issue.

Doesn't this still rely on on device manufacturers stopping pretending (via VID/PID) to be an FTDI chip? Hence actually spending money to register?
If they don't, they'll still get looked up as an FTDI part, and still get FTDI drivers - or am I missing the point?

No, it doesn't, the OS will select drivers based on the device class, regardless of VID/PID. Anybody can then have an out-of-the-box-no-driver experience without using FTDI's VID and without having to register with Microsoft. This is what OSX and Linux do.

Of course this will eliminate FTDI's main competitive advantage but that's how the free market works.

[krater]

I think this has been understood and appreciated throughout the discussion, the problem is that FTDI is not actually taking measures to stop counterfeiters and is taking it's pain out on innocent bystanders instead of enlisting their support in getting to the counterfeiters it's branding them along with the counterfeiters and doing them more harm. It spells money grabbing all over.

Yes users of fakes/clones are taking some collateral damage - what do you think FTDI should have done about it - just let them keep on using their drivers? Would you expect Microsoft to let you keep on using a counterfeit copy of Windows or Office because you had been using it a while or didn't know it was counterfeit?

FTDI's driver action is going to hinder counterfeiters look at Sparkfun's response. They are going to double check anything they have doubts about and will be even more careful with their supply chain in the future. FTDI's drivers have identified a whole bunch of fakes which everyone in the chain from user to whoever the hell made them were either blissfully or wilfully unaware of.

I consider the claims of 'never going to use FTDI parts again' to be bluster and bullshit, an admission that they produce low quality shit that may contain fakes of unknown quality and origin and would like to carry on getting away with it. I'm sure the One Hung Los of the world don't like it - screw them.

Rufus, here is your fish...
<°°°))))))))))))))))><

Extra big one with three eyes...

[Detritus]

From an email exchange I had with the CEO of FTDI concerning this...

Dear XXXXX
Thank you for your recent email regarding our recent driver release – we appreciate your feedback.
As you are probably aware, the semiconductor industry is increasingly blighted by the issue of counterfeit chips and all semiconductor vendors are taking measures to protect their IP and the investment they make in developing innovative new technology. FTDI will continue to follow an active approach to deterring the counterfeiting of our devices, in order to ensure that our customers receive genuine FTDI product. Though our intentions were honorable, we acknowledge that our recent driver update has caused concern amongst our genuine customer base.  I assure you, we value our customers highly and do not in any way wish to cause distress to them.
The recently release driver release has now been removed from Windows Update so that on-the-fly updating cannot occur. The driver is in the process of being updated and will be released next week. This will still uphold our stance against devices that are not genuine, but do so in a non-invasive way that means that there is no risk of end user’s hardware being directly affected.   
As previously stated, we recommend to all our customers to guarantee genuine FTDI products please purchase either from FTDI directly or from one of our authorised distributors.  http://www.ftdichip.com/FTSalesNetwork.htm
If you are concerned that you might have a non-genuine device, our support team would be happy to help out.
Yours Sincerely
Fred Dart - CEO

So they do seem to have recognized the error of their ways and are backing off on dorking with others hardware.

[tbbw]

So in other words the user did not hafto agree to the eula it was a silent install with no prompt at all?
I can hardly say that is proof of the users consent on the eula at all if thats the case.

EULA is irrelevant up to a point, since local law trumps random legal droid vomit.

[x] I hereby agree to grant you the right to brutally murder me because I didn't properly read this sentence.

Nope, still illegal to brutally murder me. And likewise it's still illegal to cause property damages no matter what clever word permutation you crammed in the EULA.

It just sounded like since they had an uela in an file burried somewhere that the end user never even saw made the whole thing perfectly "ok" acording to them.

[IanB]

...

I appreciate that your post appears to be genuine. But "Detritus"...posting as a troll? Could you maybe have thought a little more clearly about that?

[Detritus]

...

I appreciate that your post appears to be genuine. But "Detritus"...posting as a troll? Could you maybe have thought a little more clearly about that?

Nothing trollish about it. It's a real email I got from him. I interrupt it to mean they aren't going to be bricking anyone else's hardware any longer.

I use Detritus as my handle because I'm a big fan of Discworld, and I live in the north, and I tend to think my brain works better when cold. Not that Detritus was a troll in the books.

[IanB]

I use Detritus as my handle because I'm a big fan of Discworld, and I live in the north, and I tend to think my brain works better when cold.

Right you are then. Cold heads probably do work better than hot heads 

[iampoor]

I wonder how many thousands of Arduninos will be destroyed....

[Bud]

From an email exchange I had with the CEO of FTDI concerning this...

Dear XXXXX
Thank you for your recent email regarding our recent driver release – we appreciate your feedback.
As you are probably aware,...

And how is this your "personal email exchange" is different from what was posted 3 days ago on page 38 of this thread , and was also publicly available on FTDI web site?

[Detritus]

From an email exchange I had with the CEO of FTDI concerning this...

Dear XXXXX
Thank you for your recent email regarding our recent driver release – we appreciate your feedback.
As you are probably aware,...

And how is this your "personal email exchange" is different from what was posted 3 days ago on page 38 of this thread , and was also publicly available on FTDI web site?

Probably nothing, but at the rate new posts have been added to this thread, who can keep up and read them all?

[tbbw]

I wonder how many thousands of Arduninos will be destroyed....

Two down for me luckely they can be unbricked found this kind sir on twitter with the fix:
https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/525527784026685440

[iampoor]

I wonder how many thousands of Arduninos will be destroyed....

Two down for me luckely they can be unbricked found this kind sir on twitter with the fix:
https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/525527784026685440

Nice.

I havent plugged mine in in over a week. If I plug it in now, it should be fine right?

I was supposed to be doing development with it all last week. Glad those plans fell through!

[true]

Fuck, even Dave is using the fucking whatevergate name?

[all_repair]

For all_repair:

Company Details

Name & Registered Office:
FUTURE TECHNOLOGY DEVICES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
2 SEAWARD PLACE
CENTURION BUSINESS PARK
GLASGOW
G41 1HH
Company No. SC136640

Are they listed on any stock exchange? I've been looking to see if the driver update had any impact on their share prices but can't find anything. What are they a privately owned company?

Thanks for the replies.  I was trying to SHORT the share and inform of my actions later.  Looks like it is not listed.  If i am their bankers or supplier, I would take concrete actions to withdraw credit.  It is a foregone conclusion, FTDI is 50% gone.  Unless some drastic measures are taken to gain trust, which I did not see in the previous CEO memo (his mindset likely is the root of this issue).

[EEVblog]

even Dave is using the whatevergate name?

I didn't start it, but I like it.

[true]

even Dave is using the whatevergate name?

I didn't start it, but I like it.

Yes, I understand, but anything that is even slightly scandalous gets a -gate suffix now. Not very original and misses the point.

But I guess we live in the world of hashtags and clones now, so why not combine the two :/