Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

eevblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 315 posts

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#211

Post by tmp26 »

jessaustin wrote: post #205
tmp26 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most HN'ers seem to agree it is OK for FTDI to prevent their own drivers from working with the fakes, right? The fact that there are no OTHER drivers that are compatible (no matter what the pid is) with the fakes isn't their problem, is it?

Honest question: are you participating in this thread as a greenbean because you want to hide your identity from harassment from those who disagree with your unpopular opinion, or because you want to hide the fact that you are affiliated with FTDI?

Honestly? I rotate accounts on most major sites periodically. It is a tinfoil-hat foible, a way to distance myself from the exceedingly dumb things I have almost certainly said in years past.

Unfortunately for me, I chose today to rotate.

I don't work for FTDI; I'm not even British. But I did build that Adafruit altoid tin MP3 player eight years ago, which used a FT232.

Why am I wasting my time on this argument? I don't really know, aside from I hate the "internet dogpile" effect.

My credibility as a greenbean is nil of course, but oh well.

Edit: obviously folks do not believe me. Serves me right for trying to answer. jessaustin, I hope you at least feel like you got your answer. I get the feeling it doesn't actually matter what I say or even who I really work for- I'm branded.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#212

Post by jessaustin »

swimfar wrote: post #202

How is this much different from what is done with other counterfeit goods[1-4]? Is it because they aren't going through legal channels to do it? But these all are counterfeit, so the end result is the same, right? When counterfeit goods are found, they are seized and destroyed. I can see people getting upset about this, but I'm surprised at the unanimous response to it. [1]Car bodies: http://autoweek.com/article/car-…

[EDIT: redacted unnecessary aspersion.] In none of the links you provide are authorities taking or destroying property that consumers already bought. Rather, they're taking property from distributors who theoretically could have known better than to purchase the "counterfeits" in the first place. Can you think of any interesting way that LEOs taking property from distributors is similar to a private party destroying the property of consumers?

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#213

Post by jessaustin »

teraflop wrote: post #176
cnvogel wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has this been proven by a corresponding packet dump listing "Write EEPROM, offset 0, 4 bytes: [0,0,0,0]? Or are they -sneakily- bricking the device by evoking an unintended reaction to a seemingly innocuous command? The former will be easy to prove, the latter.. probably not so much.

Check out FTDI's Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/FTDIChip/status/524928658180304896 They're being somewhat evasive, but it's clear that this is intended as a deliberate anti-counterfeiting strategy.

Wow they could have planned this misadventure a bit more carefully. Having decided to do this stupid destructive thing, they should at least have resolved not to admit they did it on purpose. The general public would have much more sympathy if the story was "after lengthy investigation, we've determined that the bug only affects counterfeit products... we have sympathy for all victims of counterfeiting." Instead, they've gone for "in your face, you cheap bastards!" Honesty is not always the best policy, especially when you're evil.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#214

Post by userbinator »

sigterm wrote: post #197
Dylan16807 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone makes a compatible chip from scratch then they are not a parasite, they are a competitor.

Not if they label the "compatible chip" as the genuine ones.

But how is the driver to know what's written on the chip?

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#215

Post by swimfar »

jessaustin wrote: post #212
swimfar wrote: post #202

How is this much different from what is done with other counterfeit goods[1-4]? Is it because they aren't going through legal channels to do it? But these all are counterfeit, so the end result is the same, right? When counterfeit goods are found, they are seized and destroyed. I can see people getting upset about this, but I'm surprised at the unanimous response to it. [1]Car bodies: http://autoweek.com/article/car-…

[EDIT: redacted unnecessary aspersion.] In none of the links you provide are authorities taking or destroying property that consumers already bought. Rather, they're taking property from distributors who theoretically could have known better than to purchase the "counterfeits" in the first place. Can you think of any interesting way that LEOs taking property from distributors is similar to a private party destroying…

It was an honest question, and that's the kind of answer I was looking for. So maybe once it's been sold nothing can be done about it(unlike stolen goods, which is obviously a different case).

edit: According to a professor at the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham University, buying counterfeit goods is only illegal in France and Italy[1]. US customs even allow people to knowingly bring one counterfeit good into the country.

[1] http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/the-legality-of-bu...

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#216

Post by jessaustin »

TheLoneWolfling wrote: post #198
mariuolo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Iterate until the counterfeit chips are indistinguishable from the real thing via software. Will they still cost less?

Probably

But... innovation!

Seriously, though, this just looks like extracting economic rents from the fact that their vendor ids come pre-installed in certain OSes.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#217

Post by wtallis »

tmp26 wrote: post #206
wtallis wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, FTDI is leaving their vendor ID intact, and given their behavior so far it wouldn't surprise anyone if they tried to interfere with third-party drivers that enabled using non-FTDI hardware identifying itself with FTDI's vendor ID.

According to the thread the VID is RO?

So? Does anyone actually think that fact will somehow make FTDI want to be more reasonable? They'll just say that those devices being hard-coded to spoof FTDI's VID is further justification for mistreating them.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#219

Post by judk »

vonmoltke wrote: post #75
sliverstorm wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a consumer I had no way of knowing the motorcycle I bought was stolen. It came with the keys, the title, there was no evidence of thievery (most commonly broken parts around the ignition). The police said, "Wow we wouldn't have known this was stolen without running it in our database either". I didn't know. But it still gets repossessed, and I'm still out $1k. (True story, and my first brush with the laws around b…

If the person from whom the motorcycle was stolen discovered one night that it was at your house and just took it back, they would be committing a crime. Even though the motorcycle was rightfully theirs, there is a procedure to go through to get it back. Simply showing up and taking it back is a form of vigilantism. What FTDI is doing is also a form of vigilantism.

This is not true. Breaking into your house etc is criminal, but taking back their own property is not.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#220

Post by sigterm »

userbinator wrote: post #214
sigterm wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if they label the "compatible chip" as the genuine ones.

But how is the driver to know what's written on the chip?

You mean how the driver tells the counterfeit apart? I don't really know. One possibility is that the counterfeit didn't copy some of the "don't care" cases exactly.
Post reply on HN