FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232??

[a210210200]

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

Well if you want to press on with bullshit legal arguments I'll raise you with the DMCA. The VID and PID of a USB device could reasonably be considered to be an access control method for drivers which may be copyrighted.

Anyone using a non-genuine FTDI USB device with VID and PID causing access to copyrighted FTDI drivers without licence would be guilty of circumventing access controls and people selling such USB devices guilty of trafficking circumvention tools.

Hi Rufus,

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.

The FTDI clone companies are simply creating a "works like" compatible device, and nothing had to be "hacked" to make that happen, and everything needed to do it is in the public domain.

Now, if one of those clone companies try to pass their chips off as genuine FTDI, well that is illegal, and there are proper legal remedies for that-- none of which involves distributing illegal malware to damage innocent end-user's equipment [which is a *crime* BTW].

Regards,
Ken

HDCP has built in standardized revocation lists which have the sole purpose of disabling your system and making an offending device functionally incompatible with other components. (This is legal and bypassing it is technically illegal)

VID/PID is open but DMCA doesn't care. It is like saying the password was in plain text so I broke the lock for "compatibility" it was just too easy.

The VID/PID is used to match up trademarked and proprietary software and forms a very easy to bypass digital lock of sorts.

FTDI clones should have their own driver and the real legitimate pin compatible ones do or allow you to make your own.

[a210210200]

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.

If you could convince other people not to keep saying the FTDI drivers killed, bricked, damaged, rendered inoperable, etc the device?

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 (in fact it was buried in an INF file somewhere) or knowing about the terms attached to the drivers. Clearly you can't break a contract that you haven't agreed to and haven't seen. Even if it is shown, whether the EULA is legally binding is questionable.

Whether FTDI could be prosecuted for what they did depends on whether evidence could be found showing they did it intentionally.

I doubt it was tested in courts but many EULAs also say you automatically agree by using the software/service and if you don't agree then remove/return/disable the software/service to disagree to the terms. (Most websites tuck away the pages of legal stuff in another link how many people click on those links, same goes for tucking it into the inf no one reads the stuff and they are all "automatically" agreeing through use)

[eneuro]

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.

On their website there is relase date of this useless Windows driver-is it correct date?

Windows* 2014-09-29
2.12.00 WHQL Certified
Available as setup executable

However, it might not be date when included to autoupdates in Micro$soft?

Downloaded one of the Linux versions from http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/VCP/Linux/ftdi_sio.tar.gz to see what they do in this driver during module initiation, but it looks like latest release date is: Linux   2009-05-14  version 1.5.0 .
Is it latest official version of this driver or somewhere exists newer versions, eg. included in latest kernel sources?
In this from their website moduel init looks like this:

Code: [Select]

static int __init ftdi_init (void)
{
        int retval;

        dbg("%s", __FUNCTION__);
        if (vendor > 0 && product > 0) {
                /* Add user specified VID/PID to reserved element of table. */
                int i;
                for (i = 0; id_table_combined[i].idVendor; i++)
                        ;
                id_table_combined[i].match_flags = USB_DEVICE_ID_MATCH_DEVICE;
                id_table_combined[i].idVendor = vendor;
                id_table_combined[i].idProduct = product;
        }
        retval = usb_serial_register(&ftdi_sio_device);
        if (retval)
                goto failed_sio_register;
        retval = usb_register(&ftdi_driver);
        if (retval)
                goto failed_usb_register;

        info(DRIVER_VERSION ":" DRIVER_DESC);
        return 0;
failed_usb_register:
        usb_serial_deregister(&ftdi_sio_device);
failed_sio_register:
        return retval;
}

Is this part of the driver code which forced to stop working those competitors USB dongles even under strong Linux?

       if (vendor > 0 && product > 0) {
                /* Add user specified VID/PID to reserved element of table. */
                int i;
                for (i = 0; id_table_combined.idVendor; i++)
                        ;
                id_table_combined.match_flags = USB_DEVICE_ID_MATCH_DEVICE;
                id_table_combined.idVendor = vendor;
                id_table_combined.idProduct = product;
        }

Anyway it looks like this Linux driver on his webpage is old and only simply overides vendor and product id's, but ONLY  when BOTH module parameters are > 0 and hopefully only PC memory.

But, where are those patched versions of this ftdi_sio.c Linux driver module which reprogram back those product Id's I guess to correct value to be able use bricked products even under Windows with good old drivers ?

Downloading latest Linux kernel 3.17.1 from http://kernel.org for SIL CP2104 , so will also take a look what is inside ftdi_sio.c , while it looks like on kernel.org there is no patches for this file 

Just in the case if one of friends of mine bought any product bricked by FTDI to give it second life... under Linux 

[nctnico]

I doubt it was tested in courts but many EULAs also say you automatically agree by using the software/service and if you don't agree then remove/return/disable the software/service to disagree to the terms. (Most websites tuck away the pages of legal stuff in another link how many people click on those links, same goes for tucking it into the inf no one reads the stuff and they are all "automatically" agreeing through use)

Those kind of EULAs are null & void in the EU. Yes they have been tested in court. In the EU you have to agree to the terms before buying a product. Not upon opening or installing the product.

[daveshah]

I doubt it was tested in courts but many EULAs also say you automatically agree by using the software/service and if you don't agree then remove/return/disable the software/service to disagree to the terms. (Most websites tuck away the pages of legal stuff in another link how many people click on those links, same goes for tucking it into the inf no one reads the stuff and they are all "automatically" agreeing through use)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specht_v._Netscape_Communications_Corp.
IIRC the situation is similar in the EU (FTDI are based in Scotland)

[a210210200]

I doubt it was tested in courts but many EULAs also say you automatically agree by using the software/service and if you don't agree then remove/return/disable the software/service to disagree to the terms. (Most websites tuck away the pages of legal stuff in another link how many people click on those links, same goes for tucking it into the inf no one reads the stuff and they are all "automatically" agreeing through use)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specht_v._Netscape_Communications_Corp.
IIRC the situation is similar in the EU (FTDI are based in Scotland)

Problem with that was the license display was explicit from Microsoft way back when you installed. It includes provisions that you agree to follow the terms of automatically installed software or you should disable automatic updates if you disagree. That case is hiding the EULA so no one knows it exists but if another EULA specifically says that others exist and if you want to read them yourself and not automatically agree then you should not use automatic updates.

Not to mention there is no need for a EULA for HDCP to perform similar NVram disablement functions so nothing illegal has occurred. (In HDCP a working device that has its keys revoked is technically supposed to commit the revoke command to flash and it will no longer validate on an HDCP device chain and blank screen is what you'll get)

[Fungus]

Whether FTDI could be prosecuted for what they did depends on whether evidence could be found showing they did it intentionally.

There's no shortage of that...

[a210210200]

I doubt it was tested in courts but many EULAs also say you automatically agree by using the software/service and if you don't agree then remove/return/disable the software/service to disagree to the terms. (Most websites tuck away the pages of legal stuff in another link how many people click on those links, same goes for tucking it into the inf no one reads the stuff and they are all "automatically" agreeing through use)

Those kind of EULAs are null & void in the EU. Yes they have been tested in court. In the EU you have to agree to the terms before buying a product. Not upon opening or installing the product.

Microsoft has terms that people agreed to before buying or during install (wait a second, please refer the EU case that install/run time EULAs are void that makes no sense what happens if you don't buy something and they display a must read prompt that makes zero sense) which covers Microsoft services and if you don't like automatic updates and automatic terms then you should disable it. (Which is easy to do and it gives you the choice right directly as well)

[a210210200]

I think that there is enough evidence to show that FTDI did this intentionally, and with some forensic software people looking at their code [and supported with depositions, etc.], I think that fact can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

What FTDI *should* have done, is simply detect that a non-FDTI device was connected, and then send a message to the system-event log in Windows to log the problem, then disable the device in Device Manager [through an API call].  That way, the experience that the end-user would have is that the non-FTDI device would simply stop working on a Windows based machine.  If they wanted to dig deeper [or an IT person could dig deeper], they would find the exception in the system event log, which would clearly say that the FTDI driver found a non-FTDI device and is refusing to work with it.  FTDI owns the driver, so this would be a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

But, did they do that?  Nope.  They decided to commit a crime instead.

Instead of doing the *Right* thing, they made a conscious decision to order their people to write some illegal malware [illegal in the USA and many western nations, and in some nations it is treated as terrorism] to "hack" the actual hardware, and damage it in a way where it would not work [even in Linux].  AND they did this without knowing if the device they were damaging was a legitimate clone, or an illegal counterfeit part-- [which is mostly irrelevant-- it is still a crime as it is not their hardware and they don't have permission from the owner to damage it].

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"...

As for Rufus, I have seen his postings in the past, and he seems to be a competent engineer that likes to stir the shit just for fun.  Nothing wrong with that I guess.  Although, I think he [as an engineer] should show a little bit more solidarity on this issue, because it really is an important one that will have consequences for FTDI and maybe other companies in the future that attempt to do the same thing.

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

Writing revocation information to nvram is not a crime. Proper HDCP complaint devices will happily revoke their own access upon getting an automatically installed revocation list. Removing the revocation is technically not very feasible short of removing HDCP from your system which is probably breaking the DMCA in many ways.

FTDI is technically doing the same thing. (Writing 0000 = revoked access)

[nitro2k01]

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.

[8086]

The fundamental difference is the car engine requires physical repair the fake chip does not. Rebut that please.

If you have a car that requires repair, you need a mechanic.

If you have a chip that needs to be reprogrammed, you need an engineer/knowledgeable person in that area.

These both have a cost if you are not already a mechanic or engineer yourself. And even then, your time is valuable, and you are wasting it on an issue that did not exist but for the fact someone maliciously made it so that your car/device would not work for you as you expected.

What you fail to understand repeatedly, is that it does not have to be broken beyond repair for it to be an issue.

It still requires remedy, and this has a cost, whoever you are.

I have a toyota, and if I put a non-toyota part in my car, and toyota sent someone in the dead of night to interfere with the car so that it would not run, because I had the non-toyota part, I would have a pretty obvious cause for complaint. You can't just interfere with people's property (yes even though it is fake, it is still their property) because you feel an injustice has been done. That's the bottom line, there is nowhere to go with the argument after this.

Unless you like doing logical loop-the-loops. Which I await with baited breath.

[XFDDesign]

The fundamental difference is the car engine requires physical repair the fake chip does not. Rebut that please.

If you have a car that requires repair, you need a mechanic.

If you have a chip that needs to be reprogrammed, you need an engineer/knowledgeable person in that area.

These both have a cost if you are not already a mechanic or engineer yourself. And even then, your time is valuable, and you are wasting it on an issue that did not exist but for the fact someone maliciously made it so that your car/device would not work for you as you expected.

What you fail to understand repeatedly, is that it does not have to be broken beyond repair for it to be an issue.

It still requires remedy, and this has a cost, whoever you are.

I have a toyota, and if I put a non-toyota part in my car, and toyota sent someone in the dead of night to interfere with the car so that it would not run, because I had the non-toyota part, I would have a pretty obvious cause for complaint. You can't just interfere with people's property (yes even though it is fake, it is still their property) because you feel an injustice has been done. That's the bottom line, there is nowhere to go with the argument after this.

Unless you like doing logical loop-the-loops. Which I await with baited breath.

Someone else gets it.

I actually just got a response from FTDI Chip. They're working on a "detection" tool which will be released "soon" so we can have EOL testing for legit parts. It's something, at least!

[a210210200]

The fundamental difference is the car engine requires physical repair the fake chip does not. Rebut that please.

If you have a car that requires repair, you need a mechanic.

If you have a chip that needs to be reprogrammed, you need an engineer/knowledgeable person in that area.

These both have a cost if you are not already a mechanic or engineer yourself. And even then, your time is valuable, and you are wasting it on an issue that did not exist but for the fact someone maliciously made it so that your car/device would not work for you as you expected.

What you fail to understand repeatedly, is that it does not have to be broken beyond repair for it to be an issue.

It still requires remedy, and this has a cost, whoever you are.

I have a toyota, and if I put a non-toyota part in my car, and toyota sent someone in the dead of night to interfere with the car so that it would not run, because I had the non-toyota part, I would have a pretty obvious cause for complaint. You can't just interfere with people's property (yes even though it is fake, it is still their property) because you feel an injustice has been done. That's the bottom line, there is nowhere to go with the argument after this.

Unless you like doing logical loop-the-loops. Which I await with baited breath.

If you have a car that requires software you need a techi. (Cars have tons of software and probably some have optional locked features too) Engines have electronic limiters and even modification detection code (with subsequent disablement if they catch you). So your statement worked a decade ago but cars are stuffed to the brim with electronics and reprogrammable interfaces and the such. (That is where the difference is the car is not physically broken it is just being disabled in software because your not doing things the mfg likes)

The chip doesn't need to be reprogrammed other software can still detect use it. It is just FTDI's drivers that won't work with it because they are mad at the fake chips.

You don't even need an engineer to do an automatic update (linux), pressing a button or downloading a 3rd party program that does it all for you is not a highly technical activity. Using a custom system to re-write a car ECU and bypassing all the protections and unlocking things they don't want unlocked does require technical knowledge but that is a different case entirely nor is it strictly something the mfg has to allow. (Going into the dealer and if they plug in the auto-diagnostics is going to get your work at best overwritten automatically no EULA required)

You somehow manage to plug a non-toyota ECU into the car a proper system would detect that invalid part and disable the car (this isn't illegal and makes a lot of sense for a car in terms of safety). If for some reason an old software rev didn't but you went into scheduled maintenance and they did automatic diagnostics and updated the firmware and found the invalid part then they would not only remove it and charge you for replacing it they would probably send legal people to ask how you tricked the car into doing that and get statements that you did not do this to any other Toyota cars at all and you alone are responsible for any damages the fake part may have caused to your engine or car.

[a210210200]

The fundamental difference is the car engine requires physical repair the fake chip does not. Rebut that please.

If you have a car that requires repair, you need a mechanic.

If you have a chip that needs to be reprogrammed, you need an engineer/knowledgeable person in that area.

These both have a cost if you are not already a mechanic or engineer yourself. And even then, your time is valuable, and you are wasting it on an issue that did not exist but for the fact someone maliciously made it so that your car/device would not work for you as you expected.

What you fail to understand repeatedly, is that it does not have to be broken beyond repair for it to be an issue.

It still requires remedy, and this has a cost, whoever you are.

I have a toyota, and if I put a non-toyota part in my car, and toyota sent someone in the dead of night to interfere with the car so that it would not run, because I had the non-toyota part, I would have a pretty obvious cause for complaint. You can't just interfere with people's property (yes even though it is fake, it is still their property) because you feel an injustice has been done. That's the bottom line, there is nowhere to go with the argument after this.

Unless you like doing logical loop-the-loops. Which I await with baited breath.

Someone else gets it.

I actually just got a response from FTDI Chip. They're working on a "detection" tool which will be released "soon" so we can have EOL testing for legit parts. It's something, at least!

Still haven't answered the simple questions,

Is the device (Fake chip) physically damaged?
Is the device (Fake chip) not operable with other non-FTDI software?

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

[mamalala]

I doubt it was tested in courts but many EULAs also say you automatically agree by using the software/service and if you don't agree then remove/return/disable the software/service to disagree to the terms. (Most websites tuck away the pages of legal stuff in another link how many people click on those links, same goes for tucking it into the inf no one reads the stuff and they are all "automatically" agreeing through use)

LOL. Are you for real? OK, let's see.

By reading this post you automatically agree to my EULA. Which, among other things, stipulates that you have to pay me 50$ within 7 days of reading this post. Please contact me by PM to give you details about how the payment can be made.

And you are wrong. It has been tested in courts (although i am only aware of Germany/EU rulings, obviously). Shrink-wrap licenses have absolutely no legal power. None  at all. The customer needs to be made aware of the terms and conditions of any such agreement _beforehand_. Then there is all that meeting-of-minds stuff.

Really, you are grasping at straws. In the meantime, i'll await your PM so i can give you the payment details.

Greetings,

Chris

[XFDDesign]

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.

[StuB]

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.

If you could convince other people not to keep saying the FTDI drivers killed, bricked, damaged, rendered inoperable, etc the device?

Oh how I wish I could
( In their defense, in the case of somebody who is not technologically inclined, 'rendered inoperable' is mostly correct at least where communication is concerned.  Killed/bricked/damaged and other such terms are completely false, though. )

[a210210200]

I think that there is enough evidence to show that FTDI did this intentionally, and with some forensic software people looking at their code [and supported with depositions, etc.], I think that fact can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

What FTDI *should* have done, is simply detect that a non-FDTI device was connected, and then send a message to the system-event log in Windows to log the problem, then disable the device in Device Manager [through an API call].  That way, the experience that the end-user would have is that the non-FTDI device would simply stop working on a Windows based machine.  If they wanted to dig deeper [or an IT person could dig deeper], they would find the exception in the system event log, which would clearly say that the FTDI driver found a non-FTDI device and is refusing to work with it.  FTDI owns the driver, so this would be a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

But, did they do that?  Nope.  They decided to commit a crime instead.

Instead of doing the *Right* thing, they made a conscious decision to order their people to write some illegal malware [illegal in the USA and many western nations, and in some nations it is treated as terrorism] to "hack" the actual hardware, and damage it in a way where it would not work [even in Linux].  AND they did this without knowing if the device they were damaging was a legitimate clone, or an illegal counterfeit part-- [which is mostly irrelevant-- it is still a crime as it is not their hardware and they don't have permission from the owner to damage it].

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"...

As for Rufus, I have seen his postings in the past, and he seems to be a competent engineer that likes to stir the shit just for fun.  Nothing wrong with that I guess.  Although, I think he [as an engineer] should show a little bit more solidarity on this issue, because it really is an important one that will have consequences for FTDI and maybe other companies in the future that attempt to do the same thing.

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

FTDI has horrible abysmal PR that is pretty obvious but nothing is illegal about revoking a device by altering its NVram. HDCP can does this as well and is not illegal.

Writing to the windows system event log won't work on a mac, linux so they must have thought 0000 is the most "compatible" way to revoke access and have a user visible change. Tying in microsoft dependencies is going to bloat a driver.

And if you want ask the admins to check my IP because I'm based in Canada and work at the University of British Columbia. I can even post from internal machines that you can directly map to our engineering department since all our workstations get external public addresses. These baseless accusations should stop now, I subscribe to EEVblog youtube and used FTDI chips as you have in the past so when I saw the video I decided to go hop over to the forum what is wrong with doing that.

The fake chips are fakes its in the OPs title...

I think FTDI did a horrible job at stopping counterfeits because they caused such a large backlash. They should have first released tools to select trusted distributors and oems to test chips out to see how bad the problem is then release it to the public and post public news about it everywhere then lock down the driver access and do the PID0000 if they so choose to. (No one would be surprised and if they did outreach with DIY/Hacker groups they could give everyone ample notice)

[mamalala]

Microsoft has terms that people agreed to before buying or during install (wait a second, please refer the EU case that install/run time EULAs are void that makes no sense what happens if you don't buy something and they display a must read prompt that makes zero sense) which covers Microsoft services and if you don't like automatic updates and automatic terms then you should disable it. (Which is easy to do and it gives you the choice right directly as well)

What a load of bullshit. Microsoft and FTDI are two entirely separate entities. Agreeing to terms from Microsoft can in no way mean to automatically agree to any terms that a third party may come up with in the future, let alone with any third party terms that the customer has never been shown.

Like, i have a contract with my landloard to rent the place i am in. That does not mean that i have to blindly agree to any terms that, for example, the electricity company makes to supply me with electricity in said place. It doesn't matter at all what terms and conditions have been agreed to between the user and Microsoft, as far as third party stuff is concerned. Those terms only apply between MS and the customer, and no one else.

Of course, MS could say "well, yes, we adopt FTDI's terms now, and thus they are ours as well". But in that case the user has to be notified of that fact, and still shown those terms.

Greetings,

Chris

[geppa.dee]

@a210210200: Mate... chill a bit, you're going to pop... a cable or something!

The VID/PID is used to match up trademarked and proprietary software and forms a very easy to bypass digital lock of sorts.

Every word in that phrase makes sense individually. The complete phrase is, however, a steaming pile of crap. Either you have no idea what you're writing about... or those that call you a shill are right. Or both.

[a210210200]

I doubt it was tested in courts but many EULAs also say you automatically agree by using the software/service and if you don't agree then remove/return/disable the software/service to disagree to the terms. (Most websites tuck away the pages of legal stuff in another link how many people click on those links, same goes for tucking it into the inf no one reads the stuff and they are all "automatically" agreeing through use)

LOL. Are you for real? OK, let's see.

By reading this post you automatically agree to my EULA. Which, among other things, stipulates that you have to pay me 50$ within 7 days of reading this post. Please contact me by PM to give you details about how the payment can be made.

And you are wrong. It has been tested in courts (although i am only aware of Germany/EU rulings, obviously). Shrink-wrap licenses have absolutely no legal power. None  at all. The customer needs to be made aware of the terms and conditions of any such agreement _beforehand_. Then there is all that meeting-of-minds stuff.

Really, you are grasping at straws. In the meantime, i'll await your PM so i can give you the payment details.

Greetings,

Chris

The forum's EULA does not have a transitive property so your post doesn't apply. Microsoft's online services EULA does. And the point is moot automatic revocation doesn't require an EULA, HDCP and the like can do it perfectly legally and anti-counterfeiting including disablement systems are regularly used. FTDI just is horrible at introducing it.

Also to agree to a contract something has to be material has to be exchanged (Microsoft provides a legitimate service, the forum provides a place to post messages, FTDI provides software) you are just posting a demand for money which doesn't constitute an EULA or a contract of any sort.

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.

You can decline microsofts terms as well as FTDIs by not using automatic updates (which you could have disabled during install with a very explicit screen and not using the driver)

[a210210200]

Microsoft has terms that people agreed to before buying or during install (wait a second, please refer the EU case that install/run time EULAs are void that makes no sense what happens if you don't buy something and they display a must read prompt that makes zero sense) which covers Microsoft services and if you don't like automatic updates and automatic terms then you should disable it. (Which is easy to do and it gives you the choice right directly as well)

What a load of bullshit. Microsoft and FTDI are two entirely separate entities. Agreeing to terms from Microsoft can in no way mean to automatically agree to any terms that a third party may come up with in the future, let alone with any third party terms that the customer has never been shown.

Like, i have a contract with my landloard to rent the place i am in. That does not mean that i have to blindly agree to any terms that, for example, the electricity company makes to supply me with electricity in said place. It doesn't matter at all what terms and conditions have been agreed to between the user and Microsoft, as far as third party stuff is concerned. Those terms only apply between MS and the customer, and no one else.

Of course, MS could say "well, yes, we adopt FTDI's terms now, and thus they are ours as well". But in that case the user has to be notified of that fact, and still shown those terms.

Greetings,

Chris

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.

[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)