FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips 572
New submitter weilawei writes: Last night, FTDI, a Scottish manufacturer of USB-to-serial ICs, posted a response to the ongoing debacle over its allegedly intentional bricking of competitors' chips. In their statement, FTDI CEO Fred Dart said, "The recently release driver release has now been removed from Windows Update so that on-the-fly updating cannot occur. The driver is in the process of being updated and will be released next week. This will still uphold our stance against devices that are not genuine, but do so in a non-invasive way that means that there is no risk of end user's hardware being directly affected." This may have resulted from a discussion with Microsoft engineers about the implications of distributing potentially malicious driver software.
If you design hardware, what's your stance on this? Will you continue to integrate FTDI chips into your products? What alternatives are available to replace their functionality?
If you design hardware, what's your stance on this? Will you continue to integrate FTDI chips into your products? What alternatives are available to replace their functionality?
Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score:5, Informative)
They are a Scottish firm subject to U.K. Law (specifically Scottish law). As such unauthorised modification of computer materials is a criminal offence punishable with a maximum sentence of six months in jail or a 5000GBP fine.
Stopping their device driver working with clone/counterfeit chips is fine. Making modifications to data help on such chips is outright illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
Ten years, if it's decided to be more serious and is handed over to thehigher courts to prosecute.
Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score:5, Insightful)
And even without the law it seems fairly simple.
You do not INTENTIONALLY break equipment that you do not own. You do not do that. No matter how you feel about that equipment. Particularly when the person who now owns said equipment has no idea that there is a problem.
And I'd be wary of any company that could not understand that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score:5, Insightful)
Two wrongs don't make a right, was hopefully something that your parents taught you when you where quite small.
The issue is that the FTDI driver is deliberately reprogramming a chip that is not theirs and for which they have no authorisation to do so. This is an unauthorised modification and illegal.
You cannot stick something in a license agreement that allows you to break the law, because the courts will hold that part of the license agreement null and void.
As many many people have said the right and legal thing was to simply stop working and post a message to the user that the chip is a counterfeit/clone.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"The issue is that the FTDI driver is deliberately reprogramming a chip that is not theirs"
Except they're only doing this to their USB VID/PID - which IS THEIRS.
If you use FTDI's VID/PID, you're trying to pass yourself off as an FTDI chip, and it is YOUR FAULT ALONE if an operation that does not cause issues on genuine FTDI hardware does bad things to your own.
(If you look at the decompiled code, the driver attempts to write the EEPROM on all hardware. However, genuine FTDI hardware won't actually START th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And that argument would absolve them if the bricking was accidental due to the VID/PID issue. Unfortunately their subsequent blog post on the topic has them admit it was intentional. This makes their actions illegal.
Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score:4, Insightful)
That may be a matter of interpretation.
They are changing a number which is theirs (not sure if they'd have IP law on their side, or only the USB association's 'hear, hear!').
However, this change occurs by actually modifying EPROM states, said EPROM most not being theirs.
Of course then there's the bit about them not knowing that because it identifies itself as being theirs, thus it being the counterfeiters' fault for not counterfeiting it well enough to match the genuine article when sent this particular set of instructions, and the counter-issue that there doesn't appear to be any good reason to use those instructions except for targeting counterfeits, but that plain warnings don't seem to stem the tide of counterfeits, and whether counterfeits really are as big of an issue in the markets where they get most actively used anyway, and you've got a bit of a clusterfornication.
Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it is not. "Their" USB VID/PID can legally be used by anybody, it just means that the USB logo may not be used. AFAIK (and just checked on some FT232 I have), there is no USB logo on these chips.
Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score:5, Insightful)
Except they're only doing this to their USB VID/PID - which IS THEIRS.
No. They're doing it to property that other people own. Just because that property advertises a fraudulent USB ID does not transfer ownership of that property to FTDI. They are intentionally breaking other peoples' property and even crowing about it.
FTDI is taking an end-justifies-the means stance, and implementing a vigilante approach. It's drinking the imaginary property Kool-Aid that gets people drunk on ideas like this, and they seem to lose all judgment.
Re: (Score:3)
They are not. What is licensed is the USB logo and that license has a condition about these IDs. As soon as you do not use the logo, you can use whatever IDs you want on your chips.
Re: (Score:3)
"As many many people have said the right and legal thing was to simply stop working and post a message to the user that the chip is a counterfeit/clone."
As lots of OBD2 software does if you don't use a genuine ELM327 chip.
Re: (Score:3)
Well since no OS will mount a USB device with an ID 0 the chips and devices no longer work.
The code has no legitimate use, does nothing on FT (Score:4, Insightful)
They explicitly wrote code that intentionally bricks the connected device. It takes advantage of a bug/ implementation detail such that it does NOTHING on a FTDI device. Because it doesn't do anything at all on a genuine FTDI device, there is no innocent reason for FTDI to put it in their driver.
If the code did something useful on an FTDI device but broke counterfeit devices, that could be accidental. That's not the case, though - the code never does anything good, it only breaks things.
Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score:5, Informative)
FTDI doesn't have to ensure that their driver doesn't break chips. It sounds however that FTDI went out of their way to detect whether the chip was a counterfeit or not, and if it was, specifically write to it to disable it when it could have just as easily done nothing (as disabling the driver from functioning).
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
No, they moved it to "0" ie, unassigned.
Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score:5, Informative)
just yesterday, there was a linux kernel patch (on the usb drivers mailing list) that now allows a 0000 pid for ftdi devices.
also, there was a tool by mark lord that allows you to write back any pid value you want, for example, when I ran it, I got this output (and it 'fixed' the chip again, too):
% ./ft232r_prog --old-pid 0x0000 --new-pid 0x6001
ft232r_prog: version 1.24, by Mark Lord.
eeprom_size = 128
vendor_id = 0x0403
product_id = 0x0000
self_powered = 0
remote_wakeup = 1
suspend_pull_downs = 0
max_bus_power = 90 mA
manufacturer = FTDI
product = FT232R USB UART
serialnum = (elided...)
high_current_io = 0
load_d2xx_driver = 0
txd_inverted = 0
rxd_inverted = 0
rts_inverted = 0
cts_inverted = 0
dtr_inverted = 0
dsr_inverted = 0
dcd_inverted = 0
ri_inverted = 0
cbus[0] = TxLED
cbus[1] = RxLED
cbus[2] = TxDEN
cbus[3] = PwrEn
cbus[4] = Sleep
Rewriting eeprom with new contents.
Re: (Score:3)
The driver writes a value into EEPROM that sets the device's PID to zero, after which it doesn't work. The write fails on real hardware because the EEPROM doesn't accept writes to even addresses, only odd ones. Fake hardware accepts the write.
On the surface it looks malicious. FTDI's statement was all about the merits of genuine ICs, not "oops we bricked some fake devices, sorry".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would FTDI have to ensure their driver doesn't break chips that aren't theirs?
It's not that they didn't ensure that. It's that they ensured it did break them, very intentionally.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They work.
There's just no driver for them.
Re: (Score:2)
They certainly don't have to ensure that their drivers don't accidentally break chips that aren't theirs. The problem here is that they deliberately broke chips that aren't theirs. If their driver refused to service chips identified as counterfeits, that would be fine, with the caveat that they risk angering their real customers if there are false positives in their counterfeit detection method. If the driver also informed the user that the chip was a fake, that would be much better. But by intentionally bo
Re: (Score:2)
Why would FTDI have to ensure their driver doesn't break chips that aren't theirs? There's no agreement, licensing, or goodwill.
Like we don't have an agreement or licensing or other kind of contratc that I will NOT burn down your house or otherwise cause damage to you or your property.
But that does NOT give me the right to burn down your house.
We're talking about intentionally damaging a device.
It would be a different matter for unintentional damage after someone uses your product , but even then you have to apply a sensible measure of care to avoid damage through wrong or careless handling. (A warning label is the simplest measure,
Re:Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So now, all the people with PIDs of 0, and know about this fiasco, are breaking the law by continuing to use their fake device? (IANAL)
Only if you intend to fool someone into thinking it's real (say you hire them out). Otherwise it's fine. (also IANAL)
Re: (Score:3)
but you forgot, it's authorized. they clearly stated it in their EULA!
what do you mean you didn't read it?
Computer Missues Act 1990 (Score:2)
Section 3 "unauthorised modification of computer material" being the relevant element. There isn't, I think, an existing case which exactly mirrors this, but it is similar to the matter of "time locks" in software (where a program disabled itself after a given time). For a long time after the passage of the act, lawyers theorised that such locks might be illegal in some circumstances; the prosecution of Alfred Whittaker in Scunthorpe Magistrates Court in 1993 showed that it could be. But crucially in Whi
Must have been a fun conference call... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if MS thinks FTDI is on the crusade of the righteous, it certainly isn't to their advantage to have Windows Update involuntarily pulled into the fiasco.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Alternatives? Same problem.. (Score:5, Insightful)
FTDI's chip is popular, and heavily counterfeited. Right or wrong they felt they had to go to these lengths to protect their business, and it has had the effect of bringing counterfeited chips into the public consciousness.
The problem however, is that switching to another chipset won't eliminate the counterfeiters and the people who slip these chips into the supply chain to save a few bucks.
So the better question is how can we improve the system to ensure that counterfeit chips aren't being secretly swapped into our products.
Re: (Score:3)
It would have been quite reasonable to - on plug-in, put up a 'this device is using a counterfeit chip'. Banner.
(though if the chips merely reimplement the API -and do not copy the chip, and are not sold as made by the company - it is questionable if it's really counterfeit)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"are not sold as made by the company" - They use FTDI's USB VID/PID - this is representing yourself as an FTDI chip.
The tough thing is HOW to do it on first plug-in. The only method I can see that would work is to perform the same alteration the driver is doing, but instead of changing the PID to 0, change it to one reserved for fake chips. Then have the driver spit out lots of warnings if the "fake chip" PID is seen.
(As to how their driver is doing its thing - from what I've read of decompiled code, it a
Re:Alternatives? Same problem.. (Score:4, Interesting)
They use FTDI's USB VID/PID - this is representing yourself as an FTDI chip.
Only to the computer, which doesn't really count. These IDs could reasonably be considered part of the interface to the hardware; exceptions have been granted for both copyright and trademarks in the past when the infringement was required for the sake of compatibility. The real question is whether the buyer was misled to believe that these chips were manufactured by FTDI. It seems that this was indeed the case, but that's a separate issue from the USB VID/PID.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not complying with the USB associations rules on VID/PID.
This is not quite the same thing as being counterfeit.
If it is represented to the customer as a genuine chip - then sure.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, it is not questionable at all. They don't have any right to use the vendor ID (VID) assigned to FTDI.
Why not? The USB IF won't be happy about it, and not being able to trust VID/PID pairs makes driver devs sad and prone to resort to ugly fingerprinting heuristics; but none of that establishes a legal monopoly on "0x0403" for FTDI.
Re: (Score:2)
Fake copies of hardware are a growing problem all over the electronics industry. Historically, the problem tended to resolve itself when the poor copies prematurely failed on enough people that a conscious effort was made to avoid them.
It seems to me the problem that's happening now is, the counterfeits are getting good enough that they're actually becoming a good value for consumers. As just one example of this? I was just shopping for an off-road LED light bar to put on my Jeep. The traditional name bran
Re: (Score:2)
There is no part of "right" here, and is 100% wrong. You don't combat counterfeit items by destroying them, that doesn't do anything. You build a better product and accept that counterfeit exists because you aren't serving some part of the market. Serve that part, or deal with that the market has routed around your shortcomings via counterfeits.
Re: (Score:2)
So the better question is how can we improve the system to ensure that counterfeit chips aren't being secretly swapped into our products.
That's easy .. quality control on your part to verify that the chips in your product are genuine.
Remember the old saying:
Trust in God, but tie your camel
Re: (Score:2)
So the better question is how can we improve the system to ensure that counterfeit chips aren't being secretly swapped into our products.
And here we have the question FTDI needed to ask before nuking people's equipment to deal with a crime that already took place.
It's moments like this ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty thin logic ya got there, buddy. You'd best be praying those environments never gain measurable market share, because that is the only thing keeping you from being dragged squarely into the same drama.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, similar driver modification was proposed for inclusion – https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/... [lkml.org] . But Linux maintainers didn't took it. Instead, original driver was adjusted to work with FTDIs ”bricked” by Windows driver: http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&... [marc.info]
Linux is not fun anymore.
Sorry They're Changing (Score:5, Interesting)
If I was a hardware manufacturer, this would make me MORE likely to use FTDI chips. It means I have greater confidence that what I'm getting is "real", because I know that they are actively trying to make counterfeiting their product more difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but then your company then goes under after a large percentage of your customer base returns your products after they stop working.
You can spec the designs ALL you want to use authentic chips, but when your company's accounting department sees they can save a few cents to a buck per device by using the less than authentic chip. You're pretty much sunk.
Even if the accounting department agrees with you, and you get the company you work for to have boots on the ground in your manufacturing plants to make
Re: (Score:3)
*My* company doesn't go under in that model, because my company in that model is more careful about where I buy my chips from, getting them directly from FTDI for example, to ensure the provenance of the hardware I'm selling, rather than trying to find lots of them on alibaba.
When you explain to accounting that we lose ALL the money if they use the fake chips, versus a small amount of money by using the real, most accountants get it.
And - yes - there are companies who will randomly sample chips from lots of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If that's happening, I sue the bejeezus out of the factory worker. Or I decide "the risk isn't worth it", and control my own manufacturing.
There are solutions to all these problems. They may cost more up-front, but that's -- again -- the market normalizing itself as it weeds out the cancer of fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a great deal of this comes from two sources:
Company A creates a design, builds proto types etc. Hires Compnay B ( like a Foxcon to manufacture ) lets company be mange all the parts inventory etc. Essentially they just send orders.
Company B makes the product with genuine parts as speced for some period of time. Company A feels good stuff is being made correctly etc. Gradually company B starts to do more and more runs with the knock off parts growing their margin because they continue to charge A
Re: (Score:3)
Well obviously you can, you just need to install this driver.
Re: (Score:2)
If your company is so poorly run that you don't have certification processes and suppliers you can trust then you deserve to go under. If you have to destroy a few chips every now and then to make sure you are getting what you paid for, then you do that. If you have to have wording in your contracts with your suppliers that they are responsible for using genuine parts, then you do that, and you hold them to it.
Every industry has counterfeiters. Responsible manufacturers know how to deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I said in the other reply: buy direct. They sell direct. No need for a middle man.
And if they brick the chips I purchased from them, I have a legitimate cause of action against them for the damages they caused by it.
No problem either way.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that my supplier is tough on counterfeits, check. They're already top in quality, check. And also, I will never incur support costs in dealing with angry end-users complaining about bricked chips. My competitors might, if they're cheapos, and that's a competitive advantage. The aggregate cost t
Re: (Score:2)
And how can you be sure that counterfeit chips don't make it into the supply chain somewhere down the line without you knowing about it?
Having your devices get bricked (from the user's perspective) on mass because FTDI decided to try this again in the future seems like a rather large risk to take
Re: (Score:2)
Buy direct. They sell direct. Most chipmakers do.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, now you know that FTDI will admit when it has made a mistake and reverse course. The other guys might just silently make their driver BSOD with fake chips and blame it on bad hardware *cough* Prolific *cough*
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you decide to use UST-to-Serial chips that need vendor specific drivers in the first place? That's a basic usb profile that should be handled with generic drivers.
Largely reduces such unpleaseant surprises.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't understand why you'd care about ensuring that you're using quality components rather than cheaply made knock-off fakes, remind me never to put you in charge of my supply chain.
Can the counterfeit chip be detected? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
From the sounds of it, that's pretty much what they're going to do.
I'm totally fine with TFDI disallowing counterfeit devices, even tho the consumer will get boned in the end they will have to go back to the manufacturer that tried to save a few bucks by buying what is unquestionably a counterfeit chip at counterfeit price. There's no pleading ignorance when the official suppliers charge a certain amount and these back ally dealers are a fraction of the price. Any authorized fab is going to have a fixed lic
Re: (Score:2)
From looking at how their stuff works, no. The driver tries to change the PID on all devices, but genuine hardware doesn't actually write out the EEPROM until further action is taken, while clones immediately write out the EEPROM.
Although it isn't really a "brick" - it sets the PID to 0. Which is invalid, but happens often enough these days that you can still force the hardware to be used. Someone wrote a Linux patch that would register the correct driver for FTDI's VID and a PID of 0.
Another option FTDI
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously there is a way, since their malware driver was detecting it and *then* changing the pid to 0x0000. In fact you can see source code for this that someone posted to the Linux Kernel Mailing list a few days ago. Hopefully the new driver will do exactly as you suggest, though I think a big warning message box saying that the device is not genuine, but continue to function might be enough for end users to let companies know their devices are using the fake chips.
Not a chance (Score:2, Informative)
My involvement with hardware is currently only as a hobbyist, but there's a hardware project I might get on soon at work. FTDI has shown that it is willing to punish both direct and indirect customers for a wrong committed by a third party, and has not even remotely recanted that view. Management apparently thinks that they merely went too far when the world is shouting at them that going in that direction at all is unacceptable.
The obvious alternatives for USB-to-serial are:
1) Prolific 220x [prolific.com.tw]
2) Build a soft
Yes we're going to keep using FTDI chips (Score:4, Interesting)
We don't use any of the serial only chips, but on the higher end with JTAG and SPI the FTDI parts work great and aren't too expensive. If any "clone" chips get into our supply chain we would be very pissed at whoever did it. We specify actual FDTI parts for a reason. The "clones" have very hit or miss quality. We don't use them under windows either.
Re:Yes we're going to keep using FTDI chips (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
We don't use any of the serial only chips, but on the higher end with JTAG and SPI the FTDI parts work great and aren't too expensive. If any "clone" chips get into our supply chain we would be very pissed at whoever did it. We specify actual FDTI parts for a reason. The "clones" have very hit or miss quality. We don't use them under windows either.
I suspect however that if FDTI fakes did make it into your supply chain, you would much prefer any FDTI software updates to toss up a "we won't work with this device" message rather than making the device not work with any software. I don't know that I would continue to use a supplier with this type of business practice if there were any viable alternatives.
Probably Not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's a way to get more Slashdot readers reading your posts.
pardon / execution (Score:3)
The comma might recieve a pardon, but the first period and capital B on "But" will be tried, found guilty, and executed immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
As a "maker" who sells small runs of boards . . I trust that they will build the board to spec . . I don't know what the right answer is
If you are getting boards built but not checking that they are to spec, then I'd suggest that you are not doing any quality control. Doing that would be the very first step in the process. And you don't have to test every board, just a random sample.
And FTDI has now done the heavy lifting for you by writing software that will test if their chips are genuine.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe create a standard for USB serial interfaces that everyone can use? I think that already exists (the CDC).
Bingo. NIH syndrome will always bite you in the ass. Not using an open standard because you want people to think you're more unique and cool is just a recipe for needlessly blowing money, reinventing the wheel and causing people great pain such as this.
Personally, I think if they had sold the chips as "FTDI compatible" and have a link on the site or install CD to FTDI's driver download page instead of trying to brand them as FTDI chips this would be a non-issue. FTDI would simply have to compete.
Stupid is as stupid does (Score:5, Interesting)
Any BOM that passes through my hands will get FTDI crossed off. I'm sorry they have a counterfeit problem. They need to improve anti counterfeiting measures instead of inflicting collateral damage. Their abrupt decision is smelly no matter how you look at it.
It's in the license! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
By the same token, if some bloke down the pub gives me a Windows key, shouldn't Microsoft allow it to activate?
It doesn't work like that.
Unfortunately, there's a difference between having a driver that won't drive a counterfeit chip, and one that actively "breaks" counterfeit chips.
In the same way that Microsoft are quite entitled to refuse to activate illegal copies of Windows, but they aren't entitled to take it upon themselves to format your hard drives when they find them.
"the tree of evil bears bitter fruit" (Score:2)
From another OEM fighting couterfeit copies (Score:5, Insightful)
We had a similar situation come up with one of our older products. People copied our initial hardware designs some 12 years ago, built (crappy) knock offs and sold them as their own along with copies of our chips to go along with it. The black market was clearly going to run us out of business and I despised the idea of having to basically compete with ourselves just to keep handing new features over to leeches. It was infuriating to the point that I had seriously considered just shutting the business down and moving on to other things.
Instead, we spent a LOT of time redesigning our stuff to prevent anyone from (reasonably) being able to do that again. We basically wasted an entire year just dealing with counterfeit issue rather than improving our core product.
Luckily it paid off and we were able to shut that whole black market segment down. But at one point we had to consider the same option FTDI did. We gave thought to effectively bricking devices that we were able to identify as counterfeit or, worse, someone would send us one of these counterfeit packages asking us for support or service on the item. We had to basically return to them a chip and adapter we knew, without a doubt, was a bogus copy of our stuff.
It was hard, but we knew full well we could not possibly damage or keep something they had purchased through what they considered legitimate channels. FTDI should have realized this as well. They royally screwed up on this one.
It's a little strange, though, because if you buy something somewhere and it ends up being a stolen item, you're obligated to give it back to the original owner. I mean the police trail leads to your doorstep, you're out the item you bought whether you knew it was stolen or not. I guess the same concept doesn't applied to IP somehow. I'm not even sure how it would. I guess IP isn't really "property" after all.
Could have been a show-stopper (Score:3)
An alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Today Atmel, Microchip and others make inexpensive microcontrollers with native USB peripherals. The Atmel "8u2" chip, for example, is less expensive than even most of the FTDI clones, and certainly a LOT less than a genuine FTDI chip.
For years, I've published a very simple and easy-to-use USB code for those chips.
http://www.pjrc.com/teensy/usb... [pjrc.com]
I also publish a signed INF installer that works with ALL USB Serial based on this standard protocol (called Communications Device Class, Abstract Control Model, or CDC-ACM). All 3 operating systems have the necessary driver built in. Mac OS-X and Linux load it automatically. Windows needs the user to add a INF.
http://www.pjrc.com/teensy/ser... [pjrc.com]
Sadly, the CDC-ACM driver in Windows (called USBSER.SYS) is buggy. About a year ago, I sent Microsoft this reproducible bug report.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
In a follow up email a few months ago, they were supposedly testing a fix. I'm hopeful that Windows 10 may be the first version of Windows to ever ship with a good quality USB Serial driver (as Linux has done for many years, and Apple as done since releasing Lion a few years ago).
Re:An alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
You rule for sure, Paul. The Teensy line is just amazing.
LKML response (Score:5, Interesting)
FTDI tried to also get the "brick-patch" to Linux, but Greg Kroah-Hartman blocked it with this response [lkml.org]:
Funny patch, you should have saved it for April 1, otherwise people might have actually taken this seriously :)
Patches as performance art, now I've seen everything...
greg k-h
Re: (Score:3)
Here is the original message. [lkml.org] It has the comment "/* Attempt to set Vendor ID to 0 */". So yeah, they are intentionally fucking with a chip when it fails to validate. And in addition to fucking over buyers of equipment where the manufacturer may have unknowingly been given counterfeit parts, they've also told the cloners exactly what to change for their next run of chips.
Wow, just WTF. It's one thing for them to claim some loss, no matter how slight, from people leeching off of their Windows driver. But co
Re: (Score:3)
My prediction Short term effect on FTDI (Score:5, Interesting)
Yesterday a number of my clients called me to say they wanted me to design out the FTDI FT232R from current designs and replace it with an alternative (I settled on the Microchip MCP2200). Today, after this news, I called each of them to explain FTDI's change in policy and see if they still wanted to make this change. All of them said yes.
The feedback was essentially this: FTDI's actions left a bad taste in their mouth and they didn't appreciate this action being taken without any real attempt to notify resellers and manufacturers; and now that they know the alternate chip I proposed was about half the price as FTDI's offering they are happy to change. Now none of these people are high volume manufacturers, so it will unclear if FTDI will even notice.
The reason I have found for most clients wanting FTDI is confidence in the brand more than anything else. This move will affect it a little, but people's memories are short, and FTDI responded quickly enough that they won't suffer too much damage. My prediction is that FTDI will take a dip in sales for a quarter , and then things will return to more or less normal; but companies like Microchip will likely see an uptick, because manufacturers more aware of the alternatives.
I knew it would backfire on them... (Score:3)
.
You can't go destroying hardware owned by consumers, no matter what the reason.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When you send your fake Rolex (that you think is real) into Rolex for service, they don't send it back to you, they confiscate it as a counterfeit and it's destroyed. I went through this myself with a fake Mophie battery pack. They sent me back a photograph of the giant piles of counterfeit batteries that they confiscate because they came in for warranty work, and they weren't real.
This is functionally no different from that.
Re:Counterfeiters not competitors (Score:4, Insightful)
When Rolex sneaks into your house because somewhere in your apartment lease you agreed that trusted maintenance people could do so to make sure that everything is on the up and up, finds your Rolex to be a fake, and takes a winding gear out... would you consider that to also be functionally no different?
Because that's more akin to what has happened.
Windows users allow Windows (by default) to let WHQL drivers to be updated silently. FTDI made use of this mechanism to update their driver. Their driver, when called upon to communicate with the device, then sends it some data which either does nothing (genuine) or reversibly disables it (if counterfeit).
Re: (Score:3)
I'm quite certain that most people wouldn't even know that they invited anybody into their house - as it is, they're technically already in the house (FTDI's drivers come with Windows). The invitation would be with the update - but as the occupant, I'm even unaware of this invitation. In this analogy, I trust my landlord, and my landlord trusts the maintenance people. The maintenance people broke that trust, no matter how well-intentioned their actions.
As far as the winding gear bit - FTDI merely cause a
Re:Counterfeiters not competitors (Score:4, Insightful)
According to the die shots, the clone chips' implementation is more or less entirely different from the FTDI implementation. Intended to be pin-compatible, and exhibit the same behavior; but totally different silicon, not a cut and paste job.
The clones that are then labelled and sold as 'FTDI' are, certainly, in all kinds of violation of trademark law; but what of any that are just blob-topped or generically packaged and not represented as being actual FTDI? Not something FTDI likes, or is obliged to provide driver support for; but neither was the Compaq 'IBM PC compatible' BIOS.
Even if the (typically very harsh, though widely unenforced) laws regarding trademark infringing goods do actually allow FTDI to brick them in the field, they haven't actually established that a given chip is a counterfeit, rather than a mere clone, before bricking it. Unless they wish to claim that "0x0403" is entitled for trademark protection, the driver is hardly in a position to distinguish between the two.
Re: (Score:2)
They could make an argument that "0x0403" is a reference to the "FTDI" identifier, which is trademarked, and so they are claiming (to hardware and anyone who talks to it directly) that they *are* made by the vendor 0x0403/FTDI. At which point, it's a textbook trademark dilution matter.
Re: (Score:3)
The USB spec (and, probably more importantly, USB as implemented on basically all commercially relevant systems) supports essentially two mechanisms for telling the OS what driver your device requires:
If supported by a generic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The T&C are there. If you've decided to automatically accept updates without reading the T&C you're agreeing to, well, that's your own bad legal judgement.
And -- in this case -- the T&C specifically say that they "may" break counterfeit hardware.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have a problem with FTDI technology itself, the problem is with the hardware clones.
But FTDI could have taken a different route and instead show an annoying pop-up or only allow 300bps on counterfeit chips. That would work until the counterfeit chip makers goes so far in their work to create a clone that it would cost as much as the real thing at which time it's useless.
Re: (Score:3)
You very clearly didn't see the die exposure article.
The counterfeit chip is in fact WAY more complex. It's not off the shelf, so to speak. They custom-modified. It's obvious once you start looking at the physical silicon.