[...]How a person receives stolen property is irrelevant -- they cannot claim any rights to it regardless of whether they were aware or not that it was stolen, and regardless of whether or not they paid for it.

Were this the case, squatters in people homes would be kicked out right away. Instead, recent stories regarding scammers "renting" vacant homes to unsuspecting people involve lengthy eviction notices - the owners can't simply shove them out the door.

OTOH, in this case, we are talking intellectual property and code -- some of the rules are different. They are not physically damaging the material, just reprogramming it.

What if I had a system that would catch fire if not programmed with updated information via the counterfeit FTDI chip? Just because I was using the chip, and they, unbeknownst to the user, reprogrammed a device they did not make nor own, my house would burn down. All the while, I'd have no idea that I even had a counterfeit, let alone one that would be actively targeted for sabotage.

Of course, this is an extreme case, but we are playing advocates here.

Please elaborate. I don't understand your point. To be clear, we are talking about a Vendor ID and driver code that FTDI legally owns.

...but they don't. The USB vendor IDs are licensed to them - they get that number because they paid a bunch of money to a third party who said you get to use this number. Do they get to police it's use? What if the licensor decided to give the same number to another company? Does FTDI still get to modify other people's stuff just because they have an agreement between another group?

Of course you meant "crossing" the line, and I don't know. The parts have been programmed with a vendor ID that legally belongs to FTDI. The agreement between FTDI and the agency that sold them the ID may, in fact, indicate that they wide latitude wrt to anything they wish to do with hardware that contains their ID.

I don't have enough information to commit to either side of the fence. But, ask yourself: Why are the chip vendors cloning FTDI's ID (and, in fact, breaking the law), and why are the hardware vendors not using genuine FTDI parts (if they intend their products to use the FTDI driver)? I see lots of blame to spread.

I agree, it is a difficult situation for FTDI to have so many counterfeits in the wild and I sympathize with your struggle, but I hardly feel the consumer should be targeted.

 

USB VID/PIDs are not covered by copyright law/IP rights, it only allows you to use the official USB logo/trademarks on products. Labeling chips with FDTI's trademarks and selling them as FDTI is wrong.
Sabotage tactics on cloned or faked products usually end up biting you on the backside.

I remember a few years ago when Intel tried a similar sabotage tactic with 'clones', it backfired.
http://www.cnet.com/news/intel-ftc-settle-antitrust-case/

After seeing this image:

I've now enough information to choose where I stand.

I don't know about the legality, but I've no fundamental problem with them bricking every counterfeit chip that claims to be FTDI, either through physical markings or vendor ID.

Let the flames begin.

 

The counterfeiters are getting a free, unearned ride. That is why they are cloning the FDTI vendor ID.

It is impossible for them to get through without "stealing" FDTI's IDs no matter how much they pay. So, it's hard to tell if they do it because they don't want to pay for driver development, or simply because they don't have any other choice.

If you make 10 million chips, you wouldn't mind specnding $5,000 for driver development. It's 0.05 cents/chip. It's not practical to steal somebody else's driver if you can get away with your own.

The problem here is the mess that Microsoft created with USB drivers. Instead of having a single USB driver with API attached to it for everyone to use, drivers are given on a per-device basis, and as a result only selected few can get built-in drivers.

Look at this - there are plenty of USB devices that could be most efficiently implemented as CDC devices. Instead, we only see FDTI. Others (such as Microchip's MCP2200) didn't really take off because of lack of built-in drivers. Some people go great lengths and develop their devices as HID or MSD (which can use built-in Microsoft drivers) even though they would be better off with CDC (even if they had to develop their own CDC drivers). Others use FDTI chips or copy FDTI interface (which requires stealing IDs) to get CDC. Would you say now that the whole CDC concept belongs to FDTI? Or, perhaps, they had some sort of relationship with Microsoft which allowed them to hijack the CDC market?

 

Were this the case, squatters in people homes would be kicked out right away. Instead, recent stories regarding scammers "renting" vacant homes to unsuspecting people involve lengthy eviction notices - the owners can't simply shove them out the door.

Squatting is not the legal equivalent of property theft (though it should be). Here in Florida, we have the "castle doctrine", which essentially lets me shoot anyone in my house who doesn't belong there. Potential squatters should be on notice.

 

It is impossible for them to get through without "stealing" FDTI's IDs no matter how much they pay. So, it's hard to tell if they do it because they don't want to pay for driver development, or simply because they don't have any other choice.

If you make 10 million chips, you wouldn't mind specnding $5,000 for driver development. It's 0.05 cents/chip. It's not practical to steal somebody else's driver if you can get away with your own.

The problem here is the mess that Microsoft created with USB drivers. Instead of having a single USB driver with API attached to it for everyone to use, drivers are given on a per-device basis, and as a result only selected few can get built-in drivers.

Look at this - there are plenty of USB devices that could be most efficiently implemented as CDC devices. Instead, we only see FDTI. Others (such as Microchip's MCP2200) didn't really take off because of lack of built-in drivers. Some people go great lengths and develop their devices as HID or MSD (which can use built-in Microsoft drivers) even though they would be better off with CDC (even if they had to develop their own CDC drivers). Others use FDTI chips or copy FDTI interface (which requires stealing IDs) to get CDC. Would you say now that the whole CDC concept belongs to FDTI? Or, perhaps, they had some sort of relationship with Microsoft which allowed them to hijack the CDC market?

First, let it be known (if not already), that I despise Microsoft and their products.

Second, I have absolutely *no* knowledge of CDC, its history, technical implementation, or limitations.

Did FDTI "invent" the chip and write the drivers? Do they own their Trademark? Did they license the Vendor ID? Do they have a binding contract with Microsoft and the USB agency?

If so, they have legal standing to protect their property.

If what you say is true, Microsoft* is the culprit here. Not FDTI.

*And every hardware vendor that *did not* purchase their "FDTI" chips from an approved distributor.

 

Let the flames begin.

No flames from me, if they want to burn the house down let them. I just think this adds a FUD factor to their products that will hurt the companies bottom line and will help other legit competing products in new designs.(so maybe it's a good thing they did it) Their time and money could have been much better spent flagging the clones to the end-users by failing the driver to increase awareness about them having fake chips and how they were being ripped-off.

 

Squatting is not the legal equivalent of property theft (though it should be). Here in Florida, we have the "castle doctrine", which essentially lets me shoot anyone in my house who doesn't belong there. Potential squatters should be on notice.

Without researching Florida law, I am speculating that the "castle doctrine" applies to one's residence, as opposed to every house, apartment, tenement, barn, etc., that one may own.

 

Without researching Florida law, I am speculating that the "castle doctrine" applies to one's residence, as opposed to every house, apartment, tenement, barn, etc., that one may own.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

If I owned an apartment or tenement, I would make the case that I was residing temporarily or just visiting.

 

No flames from me, if they want to burn the house down let them. I just think this adds a FUD factor to their products that will hurt the companies bottom line...

Please recognize that their bottom line is already being hurt, considerably. The volume of counterfeits is obviously high enough to cause this uproar over the driver. Imagine how much better FDTI's bottom line would be if they did not have to compete against "themselves".

 

Did FDTI "invent" the chip and write the drivers? Do they own their Trademark? Did they license the Vendor ID?

That is nothing to invent here. It is simply serial-to-serial converter. If you built SPI to UART converter, would you think it's a great deal of imagination went in there?

I don't know if they license their IDs.

It's obviously wrong to copy the logo and the form of the chip, but definitely there were lots of people who simply re-used their interface to get access to their built-in driver. These might've been bricked too.

I, personally, would go with HID device instead of CDC. Although, I've heard that starting from W8, Microsoft includes universal USB driver, so may be things are getting better.

 

...What if I had a system that would catch fire if not programmed with updated information via the counterfeit FTDI chip?

And what if a counterfeit "FTDI" chip failed and caused the fire?

FTDI will incur an expense trying to prove they were not responsible *and* some smart attorney will try to claim that, even though the chip was not theirs, they gave tacit approval of its use by supporting it through their drivers.

Plus, the PR damage from the media initially claiming FTDI caused the damage (on the front page), followed weeks later by a small-print correction at the back of the paper.

Face it, FTDI loses no matter what they do or not do. I have great sympathy for them.

 

And what if a counterfeit "FTDI" chip failed and caused the fire?

FTDI will incur an expense trying to prove they were not responsible *and* some smart attorney will try to claim that, even though the chip was not theirs, they gave tacit approval of its use by supporting it through their drivers.

Plus, the PR damage from the media initially claiming FTDI caused the damage (on the front page), followed weeks later by a small-print correction at the back of the paper.

Face it, FTDI loses no matter what they do or not do. I have great sympathy for them.

Again, what's to stop them from simply making it so their drivers don't work with counterfeits? They can identify them. They've studied them to see how they could sabotage them. Why not just say, 'this is fake return 0xDEAD'?

Simply disable the usefulness of the driver for such devices.

 

Again, what's to stop them from simply making it so their drivers don't work with counterfeits? They can identify them. They've studied them to see how they could sabotage them. Why not just say, 'this is fake return 0xDEAD'?

Simply disable the usefulness of the driver for such devices.

According to NorthGuy, if I read his above post correctly, this would have the same effect as bricking, at least on Windows. So how does this create a win (or at least a tie) for them?

 

If what you say is true, Microsoft* is the culprit here. Not FDTI.

I'm sure the Microsoft lawyers read them (FTDI) the 'Riot Act' when they were pulled into this mess for distributed malware. Who do you think handles the calls from end-users when a computer function stops working from an update designed to make a 'fake' chip not work with a specific driver (a proper thing to do) but to be efficiently dead for most users with any driver. The chips are counterfeit but they are not stolen physical property, it's a IP rights fight that being handled incorrectly IMO. I completely realize the courts are just about useless in this case but virtual destruction of property is not the answer either.

https://www.publicknowledge.org/new...l-devices-and-no-fine-print-doesnt-make-it-ok

 

According to NorthGuy, if I read his above post correctly, this would have the same effect as bricking, at least on Windows. So how does this create a win (or at least a tie) for them?

Why do you think they can? It's a global market with dozens of countries that simply don't care about IP, so long as it doesn't hurt their country.

I'm just saying they have no right to modify hardware or software, for that matter, they didn't/don't/won't support.

Like I said, it sucks that FTDI's IP is being stolen, but to take it out on consumers by sabotaging their stuff is not the way to do it.

 

...but to take it out on consumers by sabotaging their stuff is not the way to do it.

I suppose the little boy should be allowed to keep the bike his parents bought him at a five-finger discount? After all, we shouldn't take it out on him.

 

I suppose the little boy should be allowed to keep the bike his parents bought him at a five-finger discount? After all, we shouldn't take it out on him.

No, but defending FTDI's actions is like supporting cutting the brakes after the kid sold it to someone else...

 

No, but defending FTDI's actions is like supporting cutting the brakes after the kid sold it to someone else...

Why should anyone assume that something stolen is safe and reliable to begin with?

 

Why should anyone assume that something stolen is safe and reliable to begin with?

Does that give the store owner the right to cut the brakes, though, this is the matter at hand.

Whether or not the person buying the stolen item is aware of it or not has nothing to do with it.

 

I suppose the little boy should be allowed to keep the bike his parents bought him at a five-finger discount? After all, we shouldn't take it out on him.

Strawman. This is an IP rights discussion, it's not about physical stolen property.

These rights have expressed limits on what legal actions you can do to protect them. I don't think vandalism is one of them.