so you are not responsible for it, whats the problem?
did anything change today? you could ALWAYS get screwed by a fake transistor that burns out after couple of hours
no more transistors too? no more opamps, no more avrs? I suppose you stopped using pendrives and SD cards, they all get faked in china
you dont have to, fake one simply wont work outright = no wasted time
why would you need any? Farnell has original chips and there is zero risk of getting fake, where is the problem?
I simply dont get angry people from this thread - you bought a fake, deal with it. Imagine someone selling Daves uCurrent Gold, build using 5% resistors and lm358, all made to look like the genuine one, except the price is $10. This is your $2 FTDI cable with free shipping.
Now I am working on a new design, but I'd like to retain a USB -> TTL serial chip with drivers available on Windows Update.
As far as I know the Prolific PL2303 does not have a driver on Windows Update, am I right? I find this chip also hard to source locally for prototypes (EU based, so I prefer Farnell).
Anyone know an alternative?
They removed their vendor ID from clone chips, nothing more.
This isn't "FTDI's driver accidentally damages clones". FTDI's driver contains code blatantly, explicitly, and clearly designed to damage clones.
They removed their vendor ID from clone chips, nothing more.
I can use whaver Vendor ID I damn well want in my product, and that is 100% legal, valid, and ethical (it just won't pass USB-IF certification).
Again: the only fake thing about the 'counterfeit' chips is the FTDI logo on them. The rest is 100% different so it doesn't infringe any copyrights, patents or whatever.No. It's an IC plus a driver. And the clone is infringing on the software license agreement.
And risk breaking USB plug and play and end user systems.
Again: the only fake thing about the 'counterfeit' chips is the FTDI logo on them. The rest is 100% different so it doesn't infringe any copyrights, patents or whatever.
No. It's an IC plus a driver. And the clone is infringing on the software license agreement. There would be no issue if the clone ICs supplied their own driver. But they're not. They are using/stealing FTDI's driver in total violation of the licensing agreement. Buy the FTDI chip - use the driver, gratis. Otherwise, write your own driver.
For a moment, forget that you are engineers.
Imagine end users. What someone owns a device with fake chip?
Imagine devices which are working for a long period of time and after the update...
It seems FTDI adopting "Stuxnet" policy!
I don't think you'd need to knowingly go grey market to get counterfeit chips. Proper suppliers have been hit by counterfeits before.
Company Counterfeit Device Statement
FTDI Chip is committed to taking appropriate measures to protect our
customers from the adverse impacts caused by counterfeiting of FTDI Chip
devices. Many of these devices resemble FTDI Chip markings which may lead
the customer to believe they are genuine. FTDI Chip has established a proactive
and global process aimed at detecting and deterring such counterfeit activity.
In order to protect our customers from acquiring counterfeit FTDI Chip devices,
we strongly advise the purchase of products directly from FTDI Chip or one of
our authorised distributors.
Please visit our Sales Network for a complete listing of authorised sales and
distribution partners.
Agreed.
I'm still wondering just how big of a problem this is for FTDI and just what other options it had to protect itself from being cloned out of its own market?
why would you need any? Farnell has original chips and there is zero risk of getting fake, where is the problem?
I simply dont get angry people from this thread - you bought a fake, deal with it. Imagine someone selling Daves uCurrent Gold, build using 5% resistors and lm358, all made to look like the genuine one, except the price is $10. This is your $2 FTDI cable with free shipping.
Does anyone know for sure how long this driver has been out?
A few hobbyists being inconvenienced by a cheap serial cable no longer working is one thing, but what happens when much bigger, more important equipment suddenly won't talk to the outside world any more?
Let's see, where are serial communication links used...
Automated test equipment? Sure.
CNC machines? Undoubtedly.
Hospital equipment? Quite possibly.
Air traffic control? Dunno.
Is is a good or bad idea to keep the PCs to which these machines are connected patched and up-to-date with all the latest updates from MS? Normally I'd have said 'yes', though it just became a more difficult question to answer correctly.
I wonder how many of these counterfeit parts are in use in the world's chip fabs...?
Agreed.
I'm still wondering just how big of a problem this is for FTDI and just what other options it had to protect itself from being cloned out of its own market?
Well, there are plenty of ways they could have taken instead of bricking hardware. And it obviously is a problem for them when they are taking such ridiculous action as to sabotage someone else's hardware.
They removed their vendor ID from clone chips, nothing more.
So, they own an integer value?
As long as I don't violate any patents, I can build a system that talks a protocol that looks like USB (of course I'm not allowed to call it USB) and send any data I like.
Somebody may have posted this earlier in the thread
from http://www.ftdichip.com/Support/Documents/QualityDocuments/Counterfeit%20statement.pdf
My opinion, which is worth what you are paying for it...
I have a great deal of sympathy with FTDI.
They shouldn't have done this: it will cause their customers (i.e. big companies) endless grief, will result in endless lawsuits (many directed at FTDI), and will large corporations' QA and purchasing departments may ban FDTI products from their future systems.
Well, there are plenty of ways they could have taken instead of bricking hardware. And it obviously is a problem for them when they are taking such ridiculous action as to sabotage someone else's hardware.Such as?