Prolific-gate -or- Why should FTDI be the only assholes

[voltsandjolts]

This has been discussed at great length already, so probably not useful to do it all over again

Agree, and with the rest of your post.
I never partook in this debate before and I'm rather enjoying it.
But I'll probably leave it there.

No malice to anyone, best wishes to all, thanks for the entertainment.

[Siwastaja]

The USB VID PID are a direct copy such that the device will use FTDI drivers without a license to do so, ergo IP infringement.

There is an important concept in intellectual property and copyright:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality

A song is copyrighted, playing a single note on a piano is not. Same with VID/PID, two 16-bit numbers. Obviously it is not under copyright. Similarly, you are free to copy any two letters from this forum post without infringing my copyright.

Anyway, FTDI made some changes to their driver, as they are entitled to do.

Actually no, they are not entitled to write and distribute software which purposely damage equipment of others. This is just totally indisputable; and you can't do anything else but to keep moving goalposts, add more lies and false claims over the top of all your existing strawman arguments.

But I think it would be best to just stop embarrassing yourself any more than that; you are already pretty deep. Especially because it has been discussed to death already.

[Karel]

I cannot think of a way more effective than what FTDI did. It really made people aware of the counterfeit problem.

[voltsandjolts]

The USB VID PID are a direct copy such that the device will use FTDI drivers without a license to do so, ergo IP infringement.

There is an important concept in intellectual property and copyright:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality

A song is copyrighted, playing a single note on a piano is not. Same with VID/PID, two 16-bit numbers. Obviously it is not under copyright. Similarly, you are free to copy any two letters from this forum post without infringing my copyright.

Production of fake software licenses (numbers), or fake software USB dongles (containing numbers) is 'conspiracy to defraud'. Furthermore, Microsoft and others have even gone after end users of software using such fake licenses, demanding payment. IMO (IANAL) using a direct copy of the FTDI VID PID on a USB device in order to run unlicensed software (in this case a driver) is effectively a fake dongle, and also prosecutable as 'conspiracy to defraud', against the vendor...if they weren't in China.

Anyhow, the fake FTDI chips are definetly illegal, if not for the numbers in them, then the logo on top of them.

Anyway, FTDI made some changes to their driver, as they are entitled to do.

Actually no, they are not entitled to write and distribute software which purposely damage equipment of others. This is just totally indisputable; and you can't do anything else but to keep moving goalposts.

It's a grey area. It would be mildly interesting to see this all play out in court.

But I think it would be best to just stop embarrassing yourself any more than that; you are already pretty deep.

Your concern for me is very touching, thank you. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Sometimes in life you have the best fun when your embarrassing yourself, like when playing hide n seek with the kids, or up on stage singing at their pre-school 'graduation'. It's actually great, you should try it and be happy.

[ataradov]

It's a grey area. It would be mildly interesting to see this all play out in court.

I remember correctly there was a court case against a company making accounting software that intentionally damaged databases of pirated copy users. Damaged by making small modifications in random places, not by completely wiping it out. So, as you can imagine you can't trust any data. If I remember correctly they lost the case.

But I just spent 30 minutes trying to find that case and I can't remember enough details to find anything useful. There is a lot of stuff on piracy, so finding that specific case is hard.

[amyk]

I don't think there's anything so distinctive of USB-serial ICs now. It's almost like a 555 or 7805 at this point. They're commodity and there's nothing they can do about it. Yet the greedy companies go to all this effort just to anger their customers. I'd love to analyze how they are checking for authenticity in the driver and publish it so people start possibly making open-source clones too.

[ataradov]

You don't need a clone of FTDI. There is just no need for that. All OSes come with CDC ACM drivers and the firmware is trivially available for any MCU with USB. The issue here is the need for programming of another MCU in production, and maintenance of the firmware. But if this is not an issue, then using MCU would be cheaper than FTDI device. WCH is even cheaper and does not need programming.

The reason for initial clones is to specifically make fakes. There is no value in non-branded devices that are compatible with FTDI drivers.

[nctnico]

You don't need a clone of FTDI. There is just no need for that. All OSes come with CDC ACM drivers and the firmware is trivially available for any MCU with USB.

Nowadays that is true. The problem was that Windows didn't recognise CDC ACM devices out of the box up to Windows 7 (IIRC) so you always needed to mess around with drivers. FTDI somehow convinced Microsoft to ship their drivers with Windows which gave them a competitive edge. But with most of the world switched to Windows 10 that recognises almost all USB serial devices out of the box, there is no advantage of using FTDI over anything else.

[ve7xen]

Deliberate IP infringement is either a civil or criminal offence, depending on the jurisdiction.
In the UK the following laws may be brought to bear in the prosecution of IP theft:

The above items in bold may also be used in prosecution of stolen goods offences.
So your assertion that "there is no connection whatsoever" is incorrect, in this jurisdiction.

I'm not sure how what you quoted supports this, since it doesn't mention theft at all. The point is that IP infringement is not theft. It's not legally treated remotely the same as theft. Stop calling it theft.

They are visibly distinguished by fraudulent use of the FTDI logo. At the silicon level, I agree. I never said any silicon IP was stolen. On Windows, they have made use of the FTDI driver, ergo IP theft, 'stolen' IP as I phrased it. If these devices had only been used on linux (with the open kernel driver) and did not have FTDI markings, there would be no infringement at all (assuming they had never signed a contract with USB-IF).

Exactly. So the usage is what might be infringing, and the device is not. You can't tell what markings it has on it, or if they are visible to the user from the driver.

You did say theft, and the only reasonable application of the word theft here (it's still not correct, but at least it's appropriating something you didn't create) would be using their design (through corporate espionage), or dies that failed QC and were meant to be destroyed or something which isn't the case here.

That is true. But from another point of view, your counterfeit devices could legally have been seized and destroyed by customs at the time of import. So, on the bright side you successfully smuggled them in, and got some use of them for few months or years If you feel particularly aggrieved, you are free to pursue legal recourse yourself, perhaps through a small claims court, or such like. I don't think that would give the result you want.

Only because it may be difficult to prove malice. But legally you're not allowed to intentionally break someone else's stuff, legally imported or not, so it seems pretty clearly illegal.

Think of the fake FTDI device as a counterfeit dongle, allowing you to illegally use some commercially licensed software package. In this case, the software happens to be a commercially licensed driver, ergo IP theft (on Windows).

This is a creative argument but I think even the overly broad DMCA requires it to be an intentional copy protection mechanism that is circumvented, which is not the case here, it's just functionality interoperable.

It's not that you can't legally go after the end user, its just a PITA. Like the RIAA music theft letters to downloaders debacle.

No, you literally can't. Trademark only protects against commercial dealing. You can't go after infringing products once they're in the consumer's hands. The whole point of trademark is to prevent consumers from being deceived, so there is no reason to extend it to ownership etc.  For the same reason, selling a complex product that includes an FTDI clone IC but doesn't use their brand, like say a 3D printer, is also probably not infringing, despite it containing an infringing part. You can only go after misuse of the trademark itself when it might cause confusion. Copyright works differently.

I think FTDI and Prolific felt huge pressure to fight back against counterfeiters and with Chinese government acting the way does, there was essentially no legal recourse there. I think the manufacturers who got burned were by-and-large shady outfits who were aware and happy to use counterfeit devices in their products. They would never have paid the price for genuine ICs anyway. I think FTDI's reputation amoungst high quality brands, who use certified supply chains, is unaffected TBH.

I understand why there want to do something like this, but all it is actually going to accomplish is increasing risk of selecting their product in a design. Despite our best efforts, supply chain incidents happen, as do false positives when it comes to subtle differences like that must use to detect clones. It's going to push both legitimate and shady alike to alternate options, and the clones will just improve or ship an old driver or whatever. It's a commodity product at this point, and this kind of response is not going to help them keep what part of the market they have left, there are plenty of alternatives.

[voltsandjolts]

Hello ve7xen. Firstly, thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts in such an organised manner.

I'm not sure how what you quoted supports this, since it doesn't mention theft at all. The point is that IP infringement is not theft. It's not legally treated remotely the same as theft. Stop calling it theft.

IP infringement is theft and is prosecuted as such in the UK. This CPS link describes the prosecution of trademark infringement and it specifically describes the role of the Theft Act 1968. The relevant quote is "'loss' includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has". That is the crux of IP theft, it is exactly the loss of revenue due to such fraudulent activity.

So it is theft. Please stop saying it isn't!

But legally you're not allowed to intentionally break someone else's stuff, legally imported or not, so it seems pretty clearly illegal.

That is the fun part of all this. FTDI's strategy is perhaps novel, in Europe anyway. I agree, you are not allowed to break someone else's stuff, but by using counterfeit products you have lost the moral high ground and there are legal arguments to be made. Your stuff should have been confiscated anyway.

Think of the fake FTDI device as a counterfeit dongle, allowing you to illegally use some commercially licensed software package. In this case, the software happens to be a commercially licensed driver, ergo IP theft (on Windows).

This is a creative argument but I think even the overly broad DMCA requires it to be an intentional copy protection mechanism that is circumvented, which is not the case here, it's just functionality interoperable.

True. But I would argue that the silicon itself was playing a role as a copy protection mechanism, since it takes significant investment to duplicate the device functionality such that it would work with the FTDI driver. Taken together, this demonstrates deliberate conspiracy to defraud.

It's not that you can't legally go after the end user, its just a PITA. Like the RIAA music theft letters to downloaders debacle.

No, you literally can't. Trademark only protects against commercial dealing. You can't go after infringing products once they're in the consumer's hands. The whole point of trademark is to prevent consumers from being deceived, so there is no reason to extend it to ownership etc.  For the same reason, selling a complex product that includes an FTDI clone IC but doesn't use their brand, like say a 3D printer, is also probably not infringing, despite it containing an infringing part. You can only go after misuse of the trademark itself when it might cause confusion. Copyright works differently.

Yes, you literally can. Well, officers of the law can. Many tourists returning from foreign climes with fake designer goods are disappointed to have them confiscated upon entry to a jurisdiction signed up to WIPO. Such fake goods are trademark infringements and are still subject to confiscation even when the consumer has taken 'ownership'. Confiscations are uncommon once through the borders, simply because it's not worth the effort policing it. The idea that counterfeit goods are fine 'n' dandy and legal now they are in my hands is plain wrong.

I understand why there want to do something like this, but all it is actually going to accomplish is increasing risk of selecting their product in a design. Despite our best efforts, supply chain incidents happen, as do false positives when it comes to subtle differences like that must use to detect clones. It's going to push both legitimate and shady alike to alternate options.

FTDI have upset some people with this novel strategy. They definitely got the timing wrong - they should have done it shortly after the fake devices appeared, before they garnered so much market penetration. If they had, it would have sunk the investment the counterfeiters made by not giving them time to recoup costs. And it wouldn't have affected end users to the scale it has now.

Trust in supply chains is more important than ever these days. Shady folks will just look for the cheapest workable options, whether fake or not. Legit businesses worry more. At least the FTDI event was relatively benign. It could have been worse, maybe some fake op-amps that burst into oscillation in your motor control loop or whatever.

[nctnico]

That is the fun part of all this. FTDI's strategy is perhaps novel, in Europe anyway. I agree, you are not allowed to break someone else's stuff, but by using counterfeit products you have lost the moral high ground and there are legal arguments to be made. Your stuff should have been confiscated anyway.

That is your opinion. Please quote some laws that say owning counterfeit goods is prohibited. The only reference I can find is that purchasing / commercially importing counterfeit goods is not allowed. Taking a fake designer item with you isn't problem either (at least in the Netherlands; passenger luggage is excempt) so my guess is that you are mistaken prohibited goods like endangered animals, weapons, etc which are being confisqated at borders. I can't find anything prohibiting ownership. IMHO you keep missing the finer points here trying to defend what you think is right but from a legal POV it is not correct.

What if you bought something second hand in good faith and it turns out the be stolen and the original owner (who -depending on the laws that apply- might no longer be the rightful owner anyway) comes over to your home and knocks your teeth out with a baseball bat? I'm sure you are not happy. That is exactly the problem with what FTDI has been doing; they are taking matters into their own hands which is a huge no-go in a civilized society. There is no excuse for their actions.

[tunk]

Yes, you literally can. Well, officers of the law can.

I guess that's the point, FTDI is not "officers of the law".

[voltsandjolts]

That is the fun part of all this. FTDI's strategy is perhaps novel, in Europe anyway. I agree, you are not allowed to break someone else's stuff, but by using counterfeit products you have lost the moral high ground and there are legal arguments to be made. Your stuff should have been confiscated anyway.

That is your opinion. Please quote some laws that say owning counterfeit goods is prohibited.

Sale or transfer of counterfeit goods is prohibited, so as a business, selling products with counterfeit ICs is illegal, either within your WIPO country or for export.
Lets be clear - you have been talking about reliability of your products. Business use.

For personal use of counterfeit products, importing counterfeit goods is illegal and they are subject to confiscation at point of entry.
Or indeed at any later time when they must be surrendered on demand to officers of the law.
[Edit]
Upon further reading, forfeiture is only applied to individuals after import if you have a view to sell or transfer offending items.
So, owning them as a private individual in the UK is allowed, assuming you successfully smuggle them in.

Taking a fake designer item with you isn't problem either (at least in the Netherlands; passenger luggage is excempt) so my guess is that you are mistaken prohibited goods like endangered animals, weapons, etc which are being confisqated at borders.

UK customs travel advice clearly states:
"The following goods may be seized and you may be prosecuted by the intellectual property right holder:
Counterfeit, pirated and patent infringing goods such as CDs, DVDs, clothing, footwear and designer goods."
[/Edit]

What if you bought something second hand in good faith and it turns out the be stolen and the original owner (who -depending on the laws that apply- might no longer be the rightful owner anyway) comes over to your home and knocks your teeth out with a baseball bat? I'm sure you are not happy. That is exactly the problem with what FTDI has been doing; they are taking matters into their own hands which is a huge no-go in a civilized society. There is no excuse for their actions.

Tell them they didn't need to knock your teeth out, because they have a legal right to a refund.

[voltsandjolts]

Yes, you literally can. Well, officers of the law can.

I guess that's the point, FTDI is not "officers of the law".

Yup, thats what makes it fun. Folks got their stolen stuff, erm, stolen.
A court case about it would be mildly interesting and bound to happen at some point in the future, with FTDI or someone else.

[madires]

What if you bought something second hand in good faith and it turns out the be stolen and the original owner (who -depending on the laws that apply- might no longer be the rightful owner anyway) comes over to your home and knocks your teeth out with a baseball bat? I'm sure you are not happy. That is exactly the problem with what FTDI has been doing; they are taking matters into their own hands which is a huge no-go in a civilized society. There is no excuse for their actions.

Tell them they didn't need to knock your teeth out, because they have a legal right to a refund.

Nope, the buyer does. When you buy an FTDI chip and get a non-genuine chip instead you have the right to a refund from the seller.

[voltsandjolts]

Oh, yeh. Skim read it and misunderstood.

[SpacedCowboy]

I remember correctly there was a court case against a company making accounting software that intentionally damaged databases of pirated copy users. Damaged by making small modifications in random places, not by completely wiping it out. So, as you can imagine you can't trust any data. If I remember correctly they lost the case.

But I just spent 30 minutes trying to find that case and I can't remember enough details to find anything useful. There is a lot of stuff on piracy, so finding that specific case is hard.

Back in the mists of time, when Atari computers were a thing, there was a game called 'Alternate Reality' that had an interesting protection mechanism: if it detected a pirate copy, it let the game run, but you couldn't sleep at the inn (so your time was limited) and eventually you'd come across a 'monster' called an 'FBI agent' who would hit you with 'the long arm of the law'. They'd hit every time, and had a lot of hit-points so they were pretty difficult to defeat.

But I think both of these cases are when software affects it's own files - which is probably a more defensible position than when it affects third-party files (or devices, in FTDI's case).

I think if FTDI had just made their driver refuse to work with non-FTDI chips, that would have been seen as just fine - their software for their chips. I think it was the bricking of the non-FTDI chips that was the problem. Just my $0.02.

[ataradov]

There was a much more ironic example of this in recent history. In a game called "Game Dev Tycoon" you could play as normal, but in a pirated version it is impossible to win, you always lose to piracy in the game (https://www.eurogamer.net/game-dev-tycoon-forces-those-who-pirate-the-game-to-unwittingly-fail-from-piracy).

A lot of people went to the forums complaining that piracy is not letting them progress in a game, inadvertently admitting they were pirates themselves.

It is hard to find a more perfect example.

And yes, simply not functioning with fake ICs would be way more acceptable. Not even printing the message on the port, just do nothing.

[SiliconWizard]

https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/counterfeiting-intended-for-a-non-legal-audience/

[voltsandjolts]

I vaguely remember another game, sort of like sims but it included running a business in the game.
If it was a pirate copy, your virtual business kept going bust because of pirate software

[Karel]

And yes, simply not functioning with fake ICs would be way more acceptable. Not even printing the message on the port, just do nothing.

What's the difference? In both cases the devices stop working and I'm convinced that in both cases the FTDI haters gonna be
FTDI haters. The only thing they want is that FTDI drivers continue to work with fake chips. Anything else is unacceptable for
them.

[uer166]

And yes, simply not functioning with fake ICs would be way more acceptable. Not even printing the message on the port, just do nothing.

What's the difference?

How do the boots taste? If you can't tell the difference then this entire discussion is like talking to a wall.

[Karel]

Just a reminder, counterfeit chips were not bricked by FTDI. What the FTDI driver did was reprogramming the vid and pid to zero.
That way the chip was not recognized by the OS anymore. However, they can again be reprogrammed with the original vid & pid.
For example using Linux.

But again, this whole discussion has alraedy been done. We can all start to copy and paste from here:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/ftdi-gate-2-0/

 

[nctnico]

And yes, simply not functioning with fake ICs would be way more acceptable. Not even printing the message on the port, just do nothing.

Disagree. The best option would be to get an error saying 'Fake FTDI device detected. Driver disabled'. That would give the unsuspecting end user a clear message and means to complain to the supplier of the device. Not working (or even breaking stuff) just backfires. An unsuspecting user is probably going to avoid anything FTDI because some of the devices don't work (or stop working) for no good reason.

Since Prolific is up to similar behaviour I'm going to avoid them as well. Again: I don't want to be in the cross fire. I couldn't care less about who is wrong or right, I don't want to deal with any of it.

[ataradov]

The best option would be to get an error saying 'Fake FTDI device detected. Driver disabled'.

Sure, but drivers can't display messages in UI dialogs. Prolific found a way to display it as a name string, which is acceptable, I guess.