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.
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"...
So, what so you day Rufus? How about you pull your head out of FTDI's ass, and come over to *our* side?
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.QuoteFrom 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.QuoteA 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.QuoteIf 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.
In the USA, we go by the UCC [Uniform Commercial Code], which [basically] says that both parties must be aware of all of the terms of an agreement, and that both parties must benefit from the agreement, and that both parties must enter into the agreement will full knowledge and consent. If one or more of these requirements are missing, the agreement will [most likely] be easily nullified in court.
You also cannot sell someone a product, and then [later] inform them that the product that they already paid for [and they expected to "just work"] won't work unless they agree to some contractual relationship-- that is very close to "compelling to contract", which is a felony-- and is only alleviated if you offer their money back if they don't want to agree to the terms.
So. shrink-wrap licensing and EULA's are very close to being criminal let alone being almost unenforceable in court.
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.
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?
In the USA, we go by the UCC [Uniform Commercial Code], which [basically] says that both parties must be aware of all of the terms of an agreement, and that both parties must benefit from the agreement, and that both parties must enter into the agreement will full knowledge and consent. If one or more of these requirements are missing, the agreement will [most likely] be easily nullified in court.
You also cannot sell someone a product, and then [later] inform them that the product that they already paid for [and they expected to "just work"] won't work unless they agree to some contractual relationship-- that is very close to "compelling to contract", which is a felony-- and is only alleviated if you offer their money back if they don't want to agree to the terms.
So. shrink-wrap licensing and EULA's are very close to being criminal let alone being almost unenforceable in court.
Thanks, good information. Wasn't aware that the US handles shrink-wrap stuff pretty much the same as the EU, what with those license styles are predominantly comming from there.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Now, now. You really want to have your cake and eat it too? Or are you just acting that stupid? On one side you defend what FTDI did, babbling about how that is in their license, and that user agreed to an EULA from Microsoft for updates, etc., completely ignoring that the user was never made aware of any of the terms that are attached to the automatic driver update for the FTDI stuff, and thus never had a chance to decline those terms. And now you want to weasel yourself out of paying me according to my EULA by telling me that you haven't been made aware of the terms i set and thus had no ability to decline?
You are nothing more than a prime example of corporate hypocrisy. If you demand that other stick to some imaginary legalese, you better be prepared to stick to such stuff yourself as well. Declining to do so, while wanting other to do so is, well, "stupid" doesn't even begin to capture it.
But at least i have to thank you for making it blatantly clear that you are just an idiotic shill.
Greetings,
Chris
You are made very aware of automatic updates it is part of windows and you had the option to disable it then and you still do have full control over it now. Turning it off is how to disagree with that aspect of Microsoft's services. They cannot rip out all the software that does windows update as it is too integrated into the OS.
You can decline you can even prevent automatic device driver updates. It isn't hidden or hard to change.
I did decline but your contract had nothing to say what happens if I decline because I can't delete your message or remove it from the forum.
Your legal contract is highly flawed and ignores the basic rules of contract law.
Ad hominem attack just make your statements appear all the more fallacious.
Just because HDCP does something bad, doesn't make it right [or legal] for FTDI to do it.
Simple questions not answered so it is pretty clear you don't have an answer.
Given your history, I suppose you certainly have experience to state this.
Is the device completely disintegrated? No.
Is the device usable (as you're inferring) by the end user? Also no.
Is there a difference as far as the end user is concerned? Still no.
QED.QuoteNo 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..........
Again, you inject "FTDI" as a prerequisite. I have a device in my hand, tell me what components are in it. Use google or any other tool to tell me whats in it. You can't. You require a minimum level of knowledge that not every end user has.QuoteAnswer the questions first and actually quote the full thing instead of cutting it off.Ah the demands of the loser, "I won't actually address the root questions you're presenting, but man are you a insufferable twit for not answering my questions!" As to "cutting the rest off," your needless qualifiers don't justify the ends.QuoteYou 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.
You realize with this last sentence, then if nothing else, that you're admitting you're trying to dodge the issue? When you yourself are not going to bother to close the first point before raising the next question, I get to do the same. Your presumed moral high ground does not exist here.
"If the device is actually killed is not an exception but a fact that it isn't killed" - taking this at face value, you apparently live in a subjective world where a device can be dead and not dead at the same time. What I'll assume, given the usual banging on you do, is that because you have the capacity to fix it, just as a mechanic has the means to repair an engine, you conclude that everyone else can too. Which does not follow at all.QuoteI 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.if one device stops working, and another device stops working (guess which one is the engine, and which is the semiconductor), to the end user, both are in an equal state of non-operation. The quote I copied, agreed with this, which means every other bit of your rambling is moot. Pointless. Your entire basis requires that your answer to there being a difference was not 'no,' but 'yes.'QuoteAnswer 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?
1. See top; no.
2. What is "other software"
3. Just to be pedantic. Technically yes, given that EEPROM is a physical thing and in one physical state it's inoperable, in another it's functional and it depends on 'repairing' the bits to be in the right electrical state.
You're welcome to cake on anything else you want, but your feelings on the matter are irrelevant to the reality that the end user sees: the fact that between one inoperable device and another, they're both dead as far as the end user is concerned. They are not "miles apart."
Just because HDCP does something bad, doesn't make it right [or legal] for FTDI to do it.
Don't worry, that HDCP stuff they bring up is nothing but a red herring meant to distract from the real issue.
Greetings,
Chris
My questions are simple :
1) Is the device physically damaged?
2) Is the device not still communicating with other software?
3) 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)
1) Yes, the device was damaged. The electrons in the EEPROM were moved around to make the device inoperable to non-FTDI drivers [i.e., *BSD's, Linix, etc.].
2) After FTDI intentionally damaged the device, it no longer communicates with legitimate non-FTDI drivers in Linux and the *BSD's.
3) Yes-- the device *can* be repaired, at considerable cost in time and labor, not to mention any tertiary financial damage that was done due to temporary loss of use of the device.
Just because HDCP does something bad, doesn't make it right [or legal] for FTDI to do it.
FTDI does not "own" the hardware, and regardless of whether it is a legal clone or a illegal counterfeit device [which the driver would not be able to distinguish], they have no right to render inoperative a device that is owned by the end-user and is useful for other purposes on other systems [Linux for example].
FTDI needs to release a *NEW* driver that both fixes the clone and/or "fake" devices that they damaged, and also [optionally] it can refuse to work with these devices once they have been repaired. I think this would go a long way to repairing the PR damage that they did to their firm and their brand.
If there are counterfeit devices "in the wild", then there are proper legal remedies to find and punish the counterfeiters [and I would agree with that action].
I think FTDI should also issue a *real* heartfelt apology to all of the innocent end-users that were caught up in this debacle.
The various law enforcement agencies should also follow up to find out if any criminal wrongdoings need to be prosecuted, and the FTDI company should probably be fined for their illegal actions.
If all of that happens, then it might be possible over time to forgive FTDI and start using their parts again.
And FTDI-- if you're reading this post, please don't fire a "sacrificial programmer" in your driver department, and then have him "suicided"...
BUT-- continuously denying what they did, blaming others, and refusing to admit that they made a mistake will only add fuel to the fire. FTDI should be on their knees begging for forgiveness-- not stomping around, arrogantly boasting that they did something "Good". A good start for this would be a long heartfelt apology from the CEO of FTDI on YouTube. They need to fix this, and fast...
Thanks DiligentMinds for the law directly,
You agreed to automatic updates including third party microsoft signed updates (full consent, knowledge) it was pretty clear to me when I install windows.
No, I run Linux, not Windows. I didn't agree to *any* terms on a Windows machine. If I loan my [legitimate clone] "FTDI-like" device to another user, and he plugs it into a Windows machine, and FTDI's drivers do something to render the device inoperable [back on my Linux machine], then I have been legally "damaged" because it will take time to troubleshoot and/or the problem, and/or money to buy a new "legitimate clone" device. FTDI had no right to modify *MY* device. They have every right to not allow their driver to talk to it, and could have done that without resorting to terrorism.
Note that the friend I loaned the cable to had no knowledge that the FTDI driver was going to do what it was going to do, so there was no intent, and he is without liability. FTDI [on the other hand] was *well* aware of what they were doing, and so *ARE* liable for my damages, and thus I have "standing" in court to bring a lawsuit against them.
This is one of the reasons I switched to Linux-- I simply grew weary of fighting with fascist companies like FTDI, and their unilateral decisions to run my life the way they want. So, I said goodbye to Windows in 2005 and never looked back.
The problem comes in when I am designing something for a client that requires a USB-serial converter. Prior to FTDI showing their penchant for fascist behavior, I would have designed in one of their parts [as I have in the past]. Now, I will use another part [probably the CP2104]-- and it is even less expensive-- which I would never have found out if FTDI did not open my eyes to their true nature.
I think that the decision maker in FTDI that ordered this idiocy should probably go to jail-- maybe just a year or two-- just as an example to other company executives that are thinking along the same lines... Only time will tell if this happens.
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
All of your arguments are irrelevant. If FTDI modified my device in *ANY* way that costs me time and/or money to discover and/or remedy, then *I* have been [legally speaking] "damaged", and can sue FTDI for compensatory and/or punitive damages. Because FTDI did this knowingly, then the punitive damages can be three times what the compensatory damages might be.
I think everyone that has a device that FTDI modified without authorization, should bring a lawsuit against FTDI-- not as a class action, but millions of individual lawsuits that FTDI will have to defend against. This [of course] will BANKRUPT them-- probably a fitting end for a fascist company like FTDI.
And DMCA Since when is DMCA applicable to a company in Scotland (UK) and laws broken e.g. in France, Germany or Netherlands?
Maybe you should look up the EU InfoSoc directive which also protects "Technological Protection Measures" and in some ways is more restrictive than the DMCA.
Such legal protection should be provided in respect of technological measures that effectively restrict acts not authorised by the rightholders of any copyright, rights related to copyright or the sui generis right in databases without, however, preventing the normal operation of electronic equipment and its technological development. ...
If you can agree that FTDI owns the driver IP, and you own the clone. Then FTDI can modify the driver to not function with the clone. They are not allowed to modify the clone to not work with the driver. Pretty simple no?
.... probably a fitting end for a fascist company like FTDI.
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
I am not a lawyer. I find it hard to see how an EULA makes any difference. The drivers (like all software) are copyright. The copyright holder FTDI allow the use of their drivers under certain conditions. No agreement is required it is just a fact and using their drivers outside of those conditions is an illegal violation of their copyright. Not agreeing that you are aware of those conditions would at best only support a defence of ignorance for that violation.
Ahhhhhhh.... NOW we are getting the to crux of the problem. You see, it was *NOT* the "device" that is using the driver, it is the O/S that chose to associate that driver with the device. This association was not intentionally done by the end-user [and in law, "intent" is almost everything]. The driver from FTDI CLEARLY has the ability to determine if it is communicating with a genuine FTDI device, and FTDI could have simply written the driver to refuse to work with non-FTDI devices. That would have been perfectly legitimate. BUT, FTDI took it too far-- they went on to actually *MODIFY* the non-FTDI device, which WAS NOT THEIR RIGHT TO DO-- and this modification rendered the device useless to LEGITIMATE drivers on Linux. This, no doubt, probably at least cost the end-user some time, and possibly some money, and THAT my friend, gives them "standing" in court to sue the crap out of FTDI.
It really doesn't matter what the modification was, or whether it's reversible, or not. If it cost the end-user time and/or money, then they were "damaged" by FDTI, and there are grounds for a lawsuit.
The *smart* move [for FTDI] would have been to have their driver simply ignore non-FTDI devices. It looks like there are not so many "smart" people directing the company at FTDI. Oops!