Now my point is will it apply in this case?
A number of questions spring to mind,
How does it apply internationally?
I assume the actual devices aren't permanently damaged here, but like most of this stuff it is arguable.
How do you prove it was intentional to damage or inconvenience?
Or was the intention something else, like to stop other devices from using their driver? And the bricking was a side effect?
Was it rendered useless?
I dont know what the legal people of various countries would make of this, if it ever came to court.
If I had to guess I would say not much.
As a result I am far from sure that it was an illegal thing to do.
I dont know what the legal people of various countries would make of this, if it ever came to court.
If a question is flawed like asking if the users expectations are the same thing as what the intention of the driver is then yes I will automatically correct it.
Device does work vs. the engine in your example doesn't that is the contradiction that is automatically fixed as well.
Your example states that the engine which is the chip doesn't work (it is physically broken) which is completely factually incorrect.
So there it is spelled out for you.
...
The basic reality is the device works but the driver does not want to talk to it and that is intended. The user may not expect that to happen and should go after the seller and so on so that the fake chips can be rooted out.
Babbling justifications of trivial and irrelevant nonsense
It isn't physically broken or even non-functional that is the core problem with your engine example.
How do you prove it was intentional to damage or inconvenience?
In the mean time, FTDI has said "sorry" somewhere: http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1324420
... and a side effect is that counterfeit devices are putting themselves into a noncompatible state ...
Dear Daniel,
Thank you for your recent email regarding our recent driver release – we appreciate your feedback and your comments have been noted.
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. We’ll try and flag some kind of message to alert users, but as the drivers reside at Kernel mode it’s not as straightforward as it seems.
Although in some parts of the media it has been implied that there was some form of counterfeit detection algorithm in the driver, this was in fact absolutely untrue. There was no mechanism of that description in place and hence no flagging up of a counterfeit device ever occurred. Exactly the same commands were sent to a genuine chip and a counterfeit chip. Some counterfeit devices simply failed to handle certain commands correctly and quarantined themselves.
Support1 email has been around for years – it sends it to a team rather than an individual – whoever is available will answer your enquiry, nothing sinister. I’m not sure what’s being going on with the Twitter thing but I’ll look into it.
Yours Sincerely
Fred Dart - CEO
Although in some parts of the media it has been implied that there was some form of counterfeit detection algorithm in the driver, this was in fact absolutely untrue... Exactly the same commands were sent to a genuine chip and a counterfeit chip.
Now that they appear to have realised the error of their ways, maybe the "I'll never use FTDI again" brigade should consider this :
Company F screws up, realises it and fixes it.
Company S hasn't (yet) screwed up.
Which of the two is more likely to do something stupid like this in the future?
"That guy's error cost me $x000"
"Why didn't you fire him"
"Why should I do that, I just spent $X000 training him..."
The Dutch criminal law says 2 years in jail or a 20k euro fine if you render something which isn't yours useless:
http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/volledig/geldigheidsdatum_29-10-2014#TweedeBoek_TitelXXVII_Artikel350
It also features several additional I/O pins and functionality. And in a small, very convenient footprint compatible for breadboard use, etc. and sells for US$5.95
Maybe "fake" is a good word for a counterfeit chip, but a CLONE is NOT a "fake".
"A month ago, we did an update to our driver, and a side effect is that counterfeit devices are putting themselves into a noncompatible state," Gordon Lunn, global customer engineer support manager at FTDI, told us. "The same API calls go out to all devices, whether genuine or nongenuine. The fake ones are not as compatible as you would expect.
However, the company has specifically said there is no "fake detection" algorithm in the driver.
There is also a potential security issue (which we highlighted last month) with microcontroller-based USB devices being reprogrammed with malware. "Our understanding is we think they are microcontroller based, so they are potentially more vulnerable," Lunn said. "You can't change what a genuine device actually does."
On top of that modification of a non-genuine FTDI chip so it no longer loads unlicensed drivers is not damage - the chip will work as well as it ever did if you get some other drivers.
Rufus, you would have to legally argue two things:
1. That a PID/VID is copyrightable - which only brings with it "who holds the copyright, FTDI or the USB-IF? And if the latter, was FTDI granted the right to effectively police that copyright on USB-IF's behalf?". Though that is part of a larger discussion of whether VID/PID can be seen as intellectual property at all, and is of no consequence to..
Whether or not the damage is recoverable or not is *irrelevant* - for all intents or purposes the device is dead, because there is *no* alternative driver that its owner can use with the modified IDs. So why are you still pushing this BS?
The VID/PID is only part of an "open" hardware interface, and it is actually the operating system that "decides" [through whatever mechanism, and VID/PID is only one of those available mechanisms] to "attach" a specific driver to a USB device. So, in this case, the criterion for a violation of the DMCA is not met.
Rufus, you would have to legally argue two things:
1. That a PID/VID is copyrightable - which only brings with it "who holds the copyright, FTDI or the USB-IF? And if the latter, was FTDI granted the right to effectively police that copyright on USB-IF's behalf?". Though that is part of a larger discussion of whether VID/PID can be seen as intellectual property at all, and is of no consequence to..
StuB, I think this is pretty much a red herring anyway - nobody is asserting that the VID/PID is copyrighted. The mechanism they were trying to use is that the *drivers* are and it is *their* EULA that forbids use with unauthorized products.
Whether this is enforceable or not is a different discussion - copyright license cannot normally be used to restrict *use*, only duplication of the work.
... illegal ...
There being no alternative driver with any ID is a clear admission that the device was always dead.
Whether or not the damage is recoverable or not is *irrelevant* - for all intents or purposes the device is dead, because there is *no* alternative driver that its owner can use with the modified IDs. So why are you still pushing this BS?There being no alternative driver with any ID is a clear admission that the device was always dead.
Whether or not the damage is recoverable or not is *irrelevant* - for all intents or purposes the device is dead, because there is *no* alternative driver that its owner can use with the modified IDs. So why are you still pushing this BS?There being no alternative driver with any ID is a clear admission that the device was always dead.Wrong again. The functional equivalent also stops working on Linux and OSX (for which FTDI didn't provide the drivers).
If a question is flawed like asking if the users expectations are the same thing as what the intention of the driver is then yes I will automatically correct it.
Just because you say it's flawed, does not make it so. What you actually mean, is that you have no logical rebuttal to the essentials of the issue.QuoteDevice does work vs. the engine in your example doesn't that is the contradiction that is automatically fixed as well.
You've stated in response to the end user's experience, the device is broken. You can't keep your own answers straight. Both are broken for the end user's experience. They do not work. The only way your position works, is if the user possesses the required knowledge to undo the "damage." You have no grounds to refute that, so you just keep going with...QuoteYour example states that the engine which is the chip doesn't work (it is physically broken) which is completely factually incorrect.
..styles of rewriting what was stated, in order to frame the issue to support your premises. In both cases, neither device has been "utterly disintegrated" - it merely requires the right tools and an appropriate fix. You've yet to rebut this, because you can't. You have to rewrite the statement in order to frame it in a way that confirms your broken position. This is verified by the fact you cannot keep your own answers straight.QuoteSo there it is spelled out for you.
...
The basic reality is the device works but the driver does not want to talk to it and that is intended. The user may not expect that to happen and should go after the seller and so on so that the fake chips can be rooted out.
"Babbling justifications of the most critical and fundamental nature" (Automatically fixed that for you)
It isn't physically broken or even non-functional that is the core problem with your engine example.
So as you're vomiting the technicolor word salad with this nonsense, you're spinning in place with your contradiction. You have neither an argument nor a compelling case. What you have is a belief which you have to load up with qualifiers and conditions in order to hide the fact, which you agreed with, that to the typical end user, there is no difference between one device which does not perform as they expect suddenly, and another device which suddenly does not perform as they expect. You have to refute this fact, before any of your drivel has a leg to stand on. Perhaps with your next response I'll just go back and refute you with your own statements, since you've made enough contradictions.
There being no alternative driver with any ID is a clear admission that the device was always dead.Is there any chance I can convince you to say "the device was always unsupported"?
To say "it was always dead", even though users had clearly been using them for many years, is absurd (if a bit Michelangeloic). That's like suggesting that, upon its confiscation due to it having been stolen, a car that you've been driving around in for 15 years never actually moved a millimeter.
As for "word games", notice that the FTDI paid shills on this forum incessantly use the word "fake"-- over and over and over again to drive it into your brain that the problem is these "fake chips".
Maybe "fake" is a good word for a counterfeit chip, but a CLONE is NOT a "fake".
In "engineer lingo" ::
CLONE != FAKE
This is all a smoke screen to keep you off of the most important aspect of this case, and that is that *someone* inside of FTDI gave the order to write and distribute ILLEGAL MALWARE to damage [otherwise] innocent end-users products. THAT ACT was a [so-called] "cyber-crime" and is a class-I felony in the USA, and will get you about 20 years in federal prison! AND, since the act was [by FTDI's own admission] not an "honest mistake", but was actually a malicious act carried out with malice and forethought, and with full knowledge and intent, then the normal "corporate shield" that protects officers and directors of corporations from criminal prosecution and/or civil litigation does not apply in this case. In other words, whomever gave the order at FTDI is subject to arrest, AND their personal assets can be attached and/or seized pending any civil litigation. WAY TO GO FTDI! {...idiots!...}
It would not surprise me greatly to learn that someone from the US department of Just-Us is investigating this matter, and arrests could be imminent. It would also not surprise me to learn that somewhere out there is an "ambulance chasing" attorney that is looking at this case as his [or her] next "class-action cash cow".
CLEARLY, FTDI took this action without consulting their legal counsel first.
Another prediction: This will open up the eyes of the Just-Us department, and I would not be surprised to learn that they are also investigating *other* companies that have engaged in similar activities-- [i.e. Prolific et. al.].