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

201–210 of 315 posts

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#201

Post by wtallis »

zippergz wrote: post #186
JackC wrote: post #126

It's interesting to consider from a legal perspective exactly why this isn't something a company is allowed to do. (Assuming the company did in fact intentionally damage people's chips, reversibly or not -- sounds like we don't know for sure yet?) - Intentionally sabotaging someone's stuff, legally, is more or less the same as intentionally taking it. Keying a car and driving it away might have different names but ar…

Regarding going after buyers, if potential buyers know that buying a counterfeit item puts them at legal risk, I think the market for said counterfeit items will shrink substantially. I think that could be a potentially convincing argument in the case of items where the buyer clearly knows (or should know) that the item they are buying is counterfeit. Is it really all that different from receiving stolen property, wh…

What would FTDI be able to go after them for? The end-user isn't copying anything so they can't run afoul of much with regards to copyright law, they know they're getting a counterfeit so they're not being fooled by trademark infringement and probably only care about the functionality of their ICs anyways, and the internals are completely different so the patent risk is minimal.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#202

Post by swimfar »

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-news/mercedes-and-daimler-cr...

[2]Guitars: http://thehub.musiciansfriend.com/bits/feds-seize-over-185-c...

[3]Carrying bags: http://www.hamm.eu/en/aktuelles-und-presse/news/2009/2009-04...

[4]Clothing: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/31/nyregion/trademark-trumps-...

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#203

Post by duncan_bayne »

FTDIs own website says their chips are used on medical devices:

https://twitter.com/JohnnySoftware/status/525092883125506048

Let's hope that all the manufacturers are 100% certain of their supply chains, from top to bottom. And that there are no bugs in the driver that might cause inadvertent bricking.

Way to go, FTDI.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#204

Post by foxylad »

dalke wrote: post #84
gioele wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My takeaway lesson is that end users should never trust closed source drivers. Can you picture a Linux or *BSD driver in which there is an intentional if (counterfeit) { do_damage(); }

Yes, I can. I can picture a product vendor using a modified Linux kernel with that code in a driver, or at least a moral equivalent. Eg, a NAS box which is "only compatible with brand X drives". Just because the code is available doesn't mean it does no damage. Only that you have the ability to find and fix the code.

> Just because the code is available doesn't mean it does no damage. Only that you have the ability to find and fix the code.

Also your shenanigans become visible. You'd have to code extremely carefully to break the fake with plausible deniability, and even then your name as a developer would forever be mud.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#205

Post by jessaustin »

tmp26 wrote: post #172
bravo22 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They change the PID to zero, which means Windows won't associate it with FTDI or any other driver. You have to jump through some manual hoops to undo it, which is something most people can't do. So for all intents and purposes it is bricked, a.k.a "locked out".

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?

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#206

Post by tmp26 »

wtallis wrote: post #177
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?

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?

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#207

Post by click170 »

swamp40 wrote: post #156
tmp26 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"bricking" doesn't seem to be the right word. FTDI is making it so that the counterfeit chips don't work with any FTDI drivers, old or new. (Per the thread, all that happens is the PID is changed to a PID that no FTDI driver will recognize)

Hey, an FTDI employee! I'm surprised you found time away from scrubbing your Facebook page clean of all the disparaging comments. My advice: Skip breakfast tomorrow morning - you're going to be eating quite a bit of crow for lunch.

There is no apology sufficient for maliciously and intentionally damaging the private property of your customers.

Refusing to work with counterfeit hardware is entirely appropriate, destroying it in a way that most consumers cannot recover from is in no way acceptable or defensible.

You may as well have come into my home and destroyed my cookware because I bought a stove from you and the pots I had weren't your brand. It's uncalled for, inappropriate, unethical, and immoral and I'm not certain that it's not illegal. Your employer has no leg to stand on.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#208

Post by jessaustin »

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.

Then any parasitism is restricted to trademarks rather than trade secrets, patents, etc. Who cares about trademarks?

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#209

Post by wtallis »

wdewind wrote: post #155
toomuchtodo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're damaging someone's hardware without their consent? Its essentially vandalism.

Sure, but the chips are illegal no? Where is the moral high ground coming from... I'm not a supporter of intellectual property laws, but we have them, so I'd also be curious of any legal ground fake chip users have to stand on.

The label printed on the outside of the plastic package of the chip is the only thing that's illegal, since it's depicting FTDI's trademark. Scrape that off and you've got a 100% legal compatible clone. Whoever decided to use the clones in any given device may be be in breach of a contract if the use of genuine FTDI chips was specified, but that may easily not be the case. (The clones also violate USB specs by using someone else's VID, but that only prevents them from labeling the product with the trademarked USB logo.)

Also, possession of the fake chip as an end user is no more illegal than owning fake Louis Vuitton stuff. It's the sale under false pretenses that gets you in trouble.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#210

Post by click170 »

iolsantr wrote: post #199
anigbrowl wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not any more. Now you can just test the prototype to see if it runs the FDTI driver correctly. If it fails, your supplier doesn't get paid.

hah... Assuming the prototype is actually identical to the delivered product. People who want to skim money off the top aren't stupid, the prototype will probably contain the specified part and so will the first few lots. To insure validity of every part you need to test every part.

I don't think testing every single unit is reasonable. Luckily we have Random Sampling which typically works quite well. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sample

Post reply on HN