The counterfeit chips do have the FTDI logo. That's why it's counterfeit...... They just try to make the counterfeit chips stop working.Bullshit.
Most of these chips do not have a FTDI marking.
Clone FT232 without using their logo is legal since FTDI, AFAIK did not patent the protocol.
Cloning SMB is not. M$ patented their protocol. However, the reason Samba is legal is because M$ explicitly gave up rights on SMB protocol, as well as many other commonly used M$ protocols/formats, like docx.
Reminds me of Angelina Jolie, who removed her breasts and ovaries just because she was afraid of cancer.
You can't give away something to people and try to restrict how they use it.
But, if the boards Nvidia gives away put fire to your home, ...they would still be liable.
Besides, it's true that another company is not supposed to use the VID/PID. But you are allowed to do such tricks for the sake of compatibility.
The counterfeit chips do have the FTDI logo. That's why it's counterfeit.
And that's why I sympathize with FTDI. They just try to make the counterfeit chips stop working.
I should have done the same.
The counterfeit chips do have the FTDI logo. That's why it's counterfeit.
And that's why I sympathize with FTDI. They just try to make the counterfeit chips stop working.
I should have done the same.Bricking compatible chips or modifying data sent to a compatible chip is computer sabotage ...
Bricking compatible chips or modifying data sent to a compatible chip is computer sabotage ...
Preventing counterfeit chips from working with their (FTDI's) driver and inserting a string "not a genuine chip"
is a logical response. Counterfeit chips shouldn't be produced or imported in the first place.
Aim your anger at the counterfeiters.
Preventing counterfeit chips from working with their (FTDI's) driver and inserting a string "not a genuine chip"
is a logical response. Counterfeit chips shouldn't be produced or imported in the first place.
Aim your anger at the counterfeiters.
Preventing counterfeit chips from working with their (FTDI's) driver and inserting a string "not a genuine chip"
is a logical response. Counterfeit chips shouldn't be produced or imported in the first place.
Aim your anger at the counterfeiters.
Karel, you keep repeating the same BS over and over.
It is the same concept as me not being able to simply shoot and kill a thief stealing my bike ...
Sorry, you can't argue a crime away.
Sorry, you can't argue a crime away.
Whether or not FTDI has committed a crime still needs to be determined. In the country where I live,
we have legal system with judges for that. So far, I haven't heard about any lawsuit against FTDI.
If the broken device would be a medical device,
Sorry, you can't argue a crime away.
Whether or not FTDI has committed a crime still needs to be determined. In the country where I live,
we have legal system with judges for that. So far, I haven't heard about any lawsuit against FTDI.Then please ask a lawyer in your country!
I'm not a lawyer ...
If the broken device would be a medical device, a SCADA system or production machine for example, things would become interesting.
Totally sure. It's a documented errata of the FT232R that was never fixed as far as I can tell, and there is no usable workaround (the workaround in that PDF is total bullshit, because you can't actually feed it data fast enough through USB to keep up with the max bitbang clockrate). The clone chip got it right. The errata PDF actually goes out of its way to be misleading and imply that the bug is fixed in Rev B, while it isn't - of the 3 issues documented, two say "fixed in rev B", but not the timing issue, and the Revision B section says "There are no known new functional issues specific to revision B.". I can confirm that genuine revision C chips are still bugged in bitbang mode. So, two silicon revisions later FTDI still hasn't fixed their broken bitbang mode, while the cloners got it right on the first try (as far as I can tell).
It's getting interesting. Which chips exactly don't have the FTDI name/logo and do use FTDI's USB VID & PID?
Please show me a link or a Farnell/Mouser/RS Components product number.
It's getting interesting. Which chips exactly don't have the FTDI name/logo and do use FTDI's USB VID & PID?
Please show me a link or a Farnell/Mouser/RS Components product number.Go back a few pages and read my posts... there's the Supereal SR1107/RD232A (likely the bulk of the clones) and Integral IZ232R (bare die). I also referenced this post from the first FTDIgate.
QuoteIf the broken device would be a medical device,
What is a "broken device"? Who "broke" it?
Hmm they committed a crime?
Well, since they are part of the UK and they are part of the EU, then go ahead by all means and report them to the authorities.
Since you are so sure you get a lawyer and take action.
"Broken device" is a simplification. The act of manipulating data ("NON GENUINE DEVICE FOUND!" instead of what ever is sent) without consensus is a criminal act by itself (§ 303a). Penalty is a fine or up to 2 years jail time. The offender is FTDI with their windows driver sending "NON GENUINE DEVICE FOUND!".
§ 303b is about interfering, modifying or damaging computer based systems which are important to someone else, also includes § 303a. There are three levels of penalties, for private computer systems, for corporate computer systems (includes authorities as well) and for huge damages, cyber criminals and important infractructure. Modifying the USB ID is clearly an illegal modification. Based on what the actual damage is, it could be just a fine (private/corporate) or jail time (up to 3 (private), 5 (corporate) or 10 (huge damage ...) years). The offender is FTDI with the old driver modifying the USB ID. Or with the new one sending "NON GENUINE DEVICE FOUND!" in case that the manipulation interferes with a computer system which is important to the victim.
Hmm they committed a crime?
Well, since they are part of the UK and they are part of the EU, then go ahead by all means and report them to the authorities.
Since you are so sure you get a lawyer and take action.
I'm out. Can't argue about law with people without a basic understanding of law. Silly me.
Just a small hint: please read about "Strafanzeige" and "Strafantrag" and maybe you'll understand.