FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232??

[SteveyG]

I applaud FTDI. Sod the people that buy cheap knock-offs. If you want to buy clones then you deserve to get it bricked. 

[a210210200]

>> The driver is copyrighted and trademarked and abusing the not illegal to abuse PID/VID system to trick a driver

Yeah, the compatible and clone counterfeit chip maker are bad boys for letting you, the windows user in a gray area when using the official FTDI driver.
It's not nice, but not illegal. It's the point of a compatible to be compatible.
The EULA is not agreed by most people using recent windows, there is no EULA on th FOSS driver, so most people did not agree to respect anything in the EULA.

Microsoft has that covered for their online services, (If you have windows you agreed to the EULA, and same for all the online services like windows update) Don't like the terms and they suggest returning the software or disabling/not using services which you do not want. FTDI's driver license is very explicit about how mad they will get if you use fake chips with their software. (Microsoft is a lot more livid though about how bad counterfeit Microsoft windows and the ways they can make it go wrong for you the user, might break the OS, no updates, things might not work if we feel like it, ...)

"7.4.   How is the software updated? We may automatically check your version of the software. We may also automatically download updates to the software from time to time. You agree to accept such updates subject to these terms unless other terms accompany the updates. If so, those other terms apply. Microsoft isn't obligated to make any updates available and doesn't guarantee that we'll support the version of the system for which you licensed the software. Such updates may not be compatible with software or services provided by third parties."

A transitive ToS. I'm surprised microsoft has just one general ToS for "Microsoft Services" (The built in EULA is similar although it has pages and pages of what happens if you are detected as a fake windows copy and all the ways Microsoft will be mad at you and what will break and how Microsoft can mangle your OS to "repair" the counterfeiting) For Microsoft their view is you don't like our terms don't use the service basically. Actually they do seem to have supplemental ones and all manner of them scattered about.

(They also say nothing about loss of use or damage should windows genuine advantage (such a happy name for a DRM system that also calls home) get angry at you even if you didn't originally install windows)(For a time Microsoft did bad things to fake copies but now they are less forceful and its more a nag to death type system than dead system type of thing, Vista really sucked on that front and it functionally acted as a timebomb type program, SP1 "fixed" that to the normal nagging)


A third party written driver has no obligation to use FTDI's anti-counter fitting measures and would be perfectly legal as a piece of software and could be called fully compatible with PID0000 fake and real FTDI parts but just directly cloning FTDI's software is not legal. As others have said PID/VID collisions themselves are not illegal so the driver can even advertise such PID/VID combos to FTDI's chagrin just nothing in the driver can refer to FTDI just call it the "very compatible very drunk virtual serial port driver". Write your own config tools (probably not very complicated) and you can be FTDI trademark/copyright free.

[Kjelt]

I applaud FTDI. Sod the people that buy cheap knock-offs. If you want to buy clones then you deserve to get it bricked. 

Might want to read the entire topic before posting something that has been posted and replied to hundreds of times already. 

[a210210200]

I applaud FTDI. Sod the people that buy cheap knock-offs. If you want to buy clones then you deserve to get it bricked. 

Plus isn't the saying don't turn it on take it apart. I always take things apart (especially commodity things that can easily contain fakes) power supplies, adapters, even cables get torn down. Detecting fakes is a skill that anyone in the industry should learn and practice.

For power supplies it is critical to detect fakes as it can actually kill you or just start a fire randomly. If it feels cheap or is too light then smashing open for inspection is certain. Even my machine shop supervisor who has no electrical experience has found fakes and can figure out basic safety aspects for power supply stuff since killing students by lack of proactive action is probably criminal negligence. The cheap and simple things are most likely to be faked as it is fairly easy to make it "function". Faking an intel i7 that actually works is another story and is probably very difficult (intel will probably get really pissed far before you even finish).

If something is too good to be true it very likely is. (Super cheap, there is going to be something traded off for that price) I buy things knowing that I could get burned and I have (One time I got lightbulb adapters instead of an LED lamp... but I'm sure worse subtle things can happen as well)

There are quality China sourced OEMs that use real parts and somehow seem to be able to actually keep a clean supply chain so if they can do it we can do it, one would hope.

[SteveyG]

I applaud FTDI. Sod the people that buy cheap knock-offs. If you want to buy clones then you deserve to get it bricked. 

Might want to read the entire topic before posting something that has been posted and replied to hundreds of times already. 

I have read, and added my opinion... 

[Things]

FTDI devices are crap, overpriced, and produced by a company clearly run by a bunch of retards. It's a sad day when it's cheaper to use a whole separate Atmel device, AND foot the cost of having it programmed to basically do what the FTDI chip did - screw them, leave the FTDI bottom feeders in here to keep using their overpriced products, while the people with brains use devices from companies who actually care about the end users. Destroying hardware is not OK, no matter how you try and twist the story to make it look OK. Fine, most people here can probably figure out a workaround, but the other 95%? Nope, as far as they're concerned the hardware is fucked. Throw it in the bin, along with FTDI themselves.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

Throw it in the bin, along with FTDI themselves.

Uninstall the driver while you are at it.

I don't see why everyone is getting so angry.
Just move on to a competitor or buy FTDI stuff, your choice.

Let the courts decide what is legal or not, I don't see how people can be so sure of what is even legal.
My bet is it will be hard to get one cent from FTDI from the legal system in whichever country someone may try to sue them.


Compared to what the large multinationals do, it's a drop in the ocean. If you want to kick someone for really doing the wrong thing kick Google.

Last year it was revealed Google's Australian arm paid just $74,000 in tax in 2011, despite an estimated $2 billion in revenue from Australian ads.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/tax-crackdown-has-to-be-global-20130723-2qhj1.html Sydney Morning Herald.

[eneuro]

Sod the people that buy cheap knock-offs. If you want to buy clones then you deserve to get it bricked. 

SIL 2104 (CP2104) is not any clone, but it's cheap and its PCB design stright forward


BTW: No need to buy anything with IDTF (read from right to left since I do not want even write this name anymore) 

[nctnico]

I applaud FTDI. Sod the people that buy cheap knock-offs. If you want to buy clones then you deserve to get it bricked. 

Might want to read the entire topic before posting something that has been posted and replied to hundreds of times already. 

I have read, and added my opinion... 

Still your opinion is wrong in so many ways. In most civilised countries laws are organized in a way that the number of victims of a criminal act are minimised and therefore what FTDI did is illegal in dozens of countries. Two wrongs don't make right. Again nobody wants functional equivalent chips in their products or sell products with such chips. But in the event it does happen without their knowledge they want to have the opportunity to make things right without getting stuck between a rock and a hard place. That is what this entire thread is about. The actions of FTDI turned people with nothing but good intentions into victims by causing them a lot of problems and loss of time (=money). If FTDI had made their driver to show a pop-up saying a non-original FTDI chip had been detected and it will stop working in 90 days the problem would be clear (no time wasted on figuring out why a device suddenly stopped working) and people can take action to set things right.

[German_EE]

Where are those USB to serial modules available from? I might get a few just in case a friend finds themselves in an FTDI type problem.

[wraper]

FTDI devices are crap, overpriced, and produced by a company clearly run by a bunch of retards. It's a sad day when it's cheaper to use a whole separate Atmel device, AND foot the cost of having it programmed to basically do what the FTDI chip did - screw them, leave the FTDI bottom feeders in here to keep using their overpriced products, while the people with brains use devices from companies who actually care about the end users. Destroying hardware is not OK, no matter how you try and twist the story to make it look OK. Fine, most people here can probably figure out a workaround, but the other 95%? Nope, as far as they're concerned the hardware is fucked. Throw it in the bin, along with FTDI themselves.

1. They are not crap. If you are concerned about compatibility, FTDI devices are the first choice. If fake fail on you, this is not FTDI fault.
2. Atmel device still needs a USB stack and driver.

[dannyf]

In most civilised countries laws are organized in a way that the number of victims of a criminal act are minimised and therefore what FTDI did is illegal in dozens of countries.

You spoke like a true authority,

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

Still your opinion is wrong in so many ways. In most civilised countries laws are organized in a way that the number of victims of a criminal act are minimised and therefore what FTDI did is illegal in dozens of countries.

I had almost that exact quote in my copy buffer before I read dannyfs reply.
If it is so obviously illegal then the appropriate law would have something to identify it, like a name or number.
Let me know what that particular law is.
And is it criminal law? If so you better let Scotland Yard know and they will send someone around.

My point is people who cry 'illegal' without a particular law of a particular jurisdiction in mind could be just grandstanding.

As to the civilised countries, I'd like to hear more on that one. 

[Things]

1. They are not crap. If you are concerned about compatibility, FTDI devices are the first choice. If fake fail on you, this is not FTDI fault.
2. Atmel device still needs a USB stack and driver.

I've had so many fail from simple EMI issues ON BOARD in commercial products it's not funny, and before you blame bad PCB design, the EMI was through the USB cable. It's entirely FTDI's fault, there are much better alternatives out there.

2. So do FTDI devices, it is (was) just conveniently included in newer versions of Windows. At least I know Atmel isn't going to push an update that kills my devices. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if MS pulls FTDI as a trusted software distributor after this and pulls their drivers from any future releases, if not sue them into the ground for the probably hundreds of thousands of people smashing their support staff right now for an update that supposedly killed their device (because, in the end, all people are going to see is that windows updated, and suddenly their device is no longer working. Who are they gonna go to?).

Only reason people still use them is because they've been around for so long, and the chip does what they need. They aren't gonna continue using it if they are at risk of their devices randomly bricking, and if they find out they can get something better, and for, GASP, cheaper!

[Cside]

Everybody here is missing the point
The point is not that FTDI are doing something legal or not, or moral or not. The real point is that Tony Abbott and his minions must be rid

[TheRevva]

Of those 15 devices, a whopping 9 proved to be contain FTDI chips (all of which were FT232R).

I'm pleased to announce that each of those 9 devices has now been 'consigned to the bin', but not before I had some fun.

And how does your face look without a nose?

.
.
.
.
.
If you need it explaining  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_the_face

There are some DISEASES that require nothing less than radical surgery.
Luckily for me in this case, the CANCER I had been infected with has now been totally eradicated.
And since I was able to catch that CANCEROUS GROWTH rather rapidly, I only had to remove a few organs that I hadn't required for a long time.

BTW, I _assume_ that you have STOLEN that wikipedia reference??? <Grins>
Oh look, there's a ball... It appears to be... IN YOUR COURT.

[Richard Crowley]

Where are those USB to serial modules available from? I might get a few just in case a friend finds themselves in an FTDI type problem.

Appears to be the Pololu CP2104 USB-to-Serial Adapter Carrier  http://www.pololu.com/product/1308
In addition to the traditional 5-pin interface for programming microcontrollers, etc. 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
And for €5,66 from: http://www.exp-tech.de/Shields/Schnittstelle/CP2104-USB-to-Serial-Adapter-Carrier.html

[nctnico]

Still your opinion is wrong in so many ways. In most civilised countries laws are organized in a way that the number of victims of a criminal act are minimised and therefore what FTDI did is illegal in dozens of countries.

I had almost that exact quote in my copy buffer before I read dannyfs reply.
If it is so obviously illegal then the appropriate law would have something to identify it, like a name or number.

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

[Kjelt]

I am not a lawyer nor live in the US but they have the same kind of laws if I google superficially:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.28.htm

Sec. 28.03.  CRIMINAL MISCHIEF.  (a)  A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:(1)  he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of the owner;(2)  he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person;

[amyk]

So if you produce a clone product without reverse engineering and then either don't brand it, or, put your own brand on it everything is fine and dandy.

Has such a chip ever been found in the wild?

Not that I have seen.  I do have an unlabelled chip at home but its something entirely different and nothing to do with the discussion other than it prompted me to ask the question you have quoted above.

An "SR9700" USB-ethernet adapter, by any chance? Might be made by the same company that's making FT232 clones:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/ftdi-driver-kills-fake-ftdi-ft232/msg535577/?topicseen#msg535577

There are USB-RS232 adapters using a COB that has no FTDI (or Prolific) branding. Here's a USB-ethernet one (probably the SR9700/RD9700) that has no marking at all on the IC:

https://projectgus.com/2013/03/anatomy-of-a-cheap-usb-ethernet-adapter/

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

I am not a lawyer nor live in the US but they have the same kind of laws if I google superficially:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.28.htm

Sec. 28.03.  CRIMINAL MISCHIEF.  (a)  A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:(1)  he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of the owner;(2)  he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person;

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

Ok that's what I was asking for. Thanks.

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.

[wraper]

I've had so many fail from simple EMI issues ON BOARD in commercial products it's not funny, and before you blame bad PCB design, the EMI was through the USB cable. It's entirely FTDI's fault, there are much better alternatives out there.

So was there EMI filtering present on USB 5V rail as should be (choke/capacitors)? BTW EMI problems on USB actually  are very common, especially if the device have high power electronics inside.

[nctnico]

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.

You are jumping the facts here. To take it to an extreme: It's like saying having sex with an underage girl is OK if she likes it. A crime is a crime.

[StuB]

I dont know what the legal people of various countries would make of this, if it ever came to court.

I rather doubt it's going to court anywhere.  The very big players either don't have counterfeit, or will simply rectify counterfeit in their products when/if detected.  Given that the driver's been rolled back for now, they even get a small reprieve.  The smaller players - especially individuals who may have a USB-serial cable modified - they're not going to start any lawsuit, they'll just complain about it on the internet, and then run whatever tool is needed to get it working again.

In the mean time, FTDI has said "sorry" somewhere: http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1324420
Still more of a "sorry we got caught and the backlash was this severe, but" than a "sorry we used end-users as pawns, here's how we intend to make it right", but at least the word "sorry" is in there.

[XFDDesign]

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.

Device 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...

Your 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.

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.

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.