 Notice. New forum software under development. It's going to miss a few functions and look a bit ugly for a while, but I'm working on it full time now as the old forum was too unstable. Couple days, all good. If you notice any issues, please contact me. |
Forum Index : Microcontroller and PC projects : FTDI Drivers Are Killing Fake Chips
  Page 3 of 4   |
|||||
| Author | Message | ||||
G8JCF Guru  Joined: 15/05/2014 Location: United KingdomPosts: 676 |
John IMHO, I think the analogy with CDs and the CD Player is incorrect. FTDI/MSFT are not disabling one's PC, ie equivalent to the CD player, but rather disabling the fake device, ie equivalent to the CD. It is my understanding (at least in England and Wales) that if one purchases stolen goods, even in good faith, then the true owner of those goods has the right to have those goods returned to them without payment, ie the purchaser has to bear the cost of purchase. The IP in these devices belongs to FTDI, that IP has been stolen and has been sold to others, ie the punters who purchase the fake FTDI devices. Those others once they become aware of the fact that they have purchased stolen property should surely at the very least stop using such stolen property, and at best return such stolen property to the rightful owner(s). To continue to use the stolen property once one becomes aware that it has been stolen, is surely to become complicit in the act of the theft itself ? I do agree that FTDI have chosen a very clumsy/stupid way of asserting their legal (IMHO) rights to their Intellectual Property, but does the way one asserts one's right define whether one has the right or not in the first place ? It will be interesting to see how this matter progresses over time, and whether anybody/entity will seek to legally challenge MSFT/FTDI's actions and what acts of parliament will be rolled out by each side in defence of their actions. Peter The only Konstant is Change |
||||
bigmik Guru Joined: 20/06/2011 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2949 |
Gday Peter, If the chip is of a different hardware as has been mentioned on hackaday and other places what IP has been stolen? As assuming it is a micro masquerading as something else it wont have any of the FTDI code or silicon in it.. .. Stealing Tradmarks, logos and PID/VID is a different question though, but doubtful to be classified as IP.. But then I ma no lawyer. Not that I doubt for an instance that a scam has been perpetrated. They should have just gone one step further and released it as a new product and had their own driver, that would have forced FTDI to lower their prices. Regards, Mick Mick's uMite Stuff can be found >>> HERE (Kindly hosted by Dontronics) <<< |
||||
| JohnS Guru Joined: 18/11/2011 Location: United KingdomPosts: 4036 |
Peter, That might apply if the goods were physical and had been owned by FTDI (or possibly by Microsoft). Any disabling of any hardware like this is a criminal act and also a civil one, penalties apply for each. I see the USA people are looking at a class action. If brought it may well bankrupt FTDI. That would be a pity but American remedies can be very harsh. I suspect FTDI's best plan is to undo the driver change, fire the programmer and pray they can say it was a loan wolf acting without management knowledge (if that's the case). John |
||||
| G8JCF Guru Joined: 15/05/2014 Location: United KingdomPosts: 676 |
Hi BigMik The IP relates not only to the circuit etc, but also to the specification of functionality, and the behaviour of the device when stimulated. Intel (and IBM) made a big mistake by not properly registering their designs allowing AMD (and AMI) to clone their IP using clean room methodologies, but the protection of IP was in its infancy way back then. Hi John I do think that had FTDI chosen the nag route rather than the PID=0 route, they would have garnered sympathy, reduced the opportunity for legal challenge, and highlighted a very serious and growing problem, ie China's wilful disregard for IP, indeed China govt spies have been caught and jailed in the USA for such actions. If this goes to court it should be interesting to see how the court rules. The USA govt. I suspect would dearly love to find a way of punishing China IP pirates, but on the other hand, punters like having cheap stuff, and if a knock-off works, that'll do. BTW, I found this, see http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/FTDriverLicenceTermsSummary. htm That was as of just now on FTDI's site, so of course it could be damage limitation, but if this term was added AFTER the fact, then it's going to look very bad indeed on FTDI, if however it was present PRIOR to the fact, then people have no excuse. I'll have to scan through my downloads and find a really old FTDI driver and see what the Ts&Cs say. Doubtless, the lawyers at FTDI are working feverishly away as we type. The other interesting thing is that FTDI is incorporated in Scotland, and FTDI is headquartered in Glasgow Scotland which has a distinct legal system from England & Wales, and as I have found out, Scots law is sometimes very different to English law. The license agreement is governed under Scots Law - see http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/FTDriverLicenceTerms.htm again FTDI could have just recently changed the terms of the license agreement in response to the current situation, but again, if they have just done that, it would not look very good for them in court. As usual, only the lawyers will benefit from this ! Peter The only Konstant is Change |
||||
vasi Guru Joined: 23/03/2007 Location: RomaniaPosts: 1697 |
Peter, I think you're right if is exactly about FTDI chip... but that chip in many cases is part of a more expensive product which have nothing to do with their company/business. As a consumer, I didn't bought their chip, I bought something else and if they enter on my private property, I can take measures. They are "hardware terrorists" considering my human rights. Guys, it doesn't matter the noble reasons behind your actions, if you seek to make justice by your own, then we are in the wild, wild west again. Because you couldn't stop the illegal manufacturers, now you are shooting everyone. Is not that you may die in this case. No! It is, now you must die. I know, it is a harsh analogy but this is how things are. Hobbit name: Togo Toadfoot of Frogmorton Elvish name: Mablung Miriel Beyound Arduino Lang |
||||
| robert.rozee Guru Joined: 31/12/2012 Location: New ZealandPosts: 2428 |
i agree with Mick and John. there has been no wholesale theft of IP in the sense of copying FTDI's code or design. these 'fake' chips are better described as largely legitimate clones. perhaps forgeries, though as FTDI have just proven they are poor forgeries that are easily identified (much like monopoly money is a poor forgery of legal tender bank notes). the salient points seem to be: 1. the label saying "FTDI" on the top of the chip is a clear trademark violation. not IP theft, but a civil trademark violation. the manufacturer of the parts is solely answerable for this, and FTDI has no redress against owners of the goods. their legal course of action is to sue the guy putting on the labels and to have the courts seize stock in transit. 2. using the same part number likely breaks no laws, part numbers can not be trademarked. ask intel about this, who had to switch from "80x86" to "pentium" in order to prevent AMD from swiping their product name back in the late 80's 3. the mimicked command set is fine if 'clean room' reverse engineering was used in mapping out the commands. we have no evidence that this was not done correctly. 4. the VID/PID can be claimed as property of microchip, but can be set by anyone and reprogrammed in the field. proof is that microchip provides a utility to change these numbers, and also published the sources to their drivers for OEM's to roll their own custom drivers. is a VID "owned" or "licensed"? 5. being compatible with microchip's drivers seems to be no crime. compatibility in various software and hardware products is commonplace and well accepted. so the only transgressions seems to be using the name "FTDI" on top of the chip, and the act of someone (who may not even be the component manufacturer) loading in the FTDI VID/PID pair. and, in fact, only the VID can be claimed as belonging to FTDI anyway. a single 16-bit number. what if someone were instead selling these chips as "FTDI compatible", and providing the FTDI (or other) utility within a wrapper for the product maker or even end user to set the VID/PID? is the end user not allowed to adjust the VID to gain better compatibility. of course, FTDI are in fact interested in two things: (a) that their logo is printed on top of the device, and (b) that someone has made a part that is compatible with the FTDI drivers. but said compatibility is, in itself, no crime. FTDI seems to have only a copyright case against the component manufacturer, and a right to not support the parts they believe are not their own. rob :-) |
||||
| robert.rozee Guru Joined: 31/12/2012 Location: New ZealandPosts: 2428 |
since when was clean-room reverse engineering and the act of making a compatible API a crime?! in the free world these are well enshrined legitimate engineering processes that have allowed us to have such marvels as Open Office, VLC, wine, refillable ink cartridges, generic drugs for the poor, and the list goes on. not that the FTDI cloners needed these methods - all they needed to do was take the source code for the FTDI drivers (licensed to OEMs) and design a chip that was compatible with the well-documented interface. the wrongdoing is strictly limited to: copying a logo, and unknown persons programming in a specific VID. rob :-) |
||||
| JohnS Guru Joined: 18/11/2011 Location: United KingdomPosts: 4036 |
The law applies to a legal territory and where the damage occurred, so any damage caused or crimes committed in England fall under English law. Redress and/or punishment would be for the English courts. It would then have to be applied against FTDI wherever based and being Scotland would be easy. Scottish law would be relevant if I lived in Scotland. Americans would use the same reasoning, applying their laws. FTDI's only defence would appear to be if their driver must do what it now does but that's hard to argue since it didn't do it for ages. John |
||||
BobD Guru Joined: 07/12/2011 Location: AustraliaPosts: 935 |
FTDI have not claimed ownership or IP violation on these chips. They have sneaked in, using a trusted and legitimate vehicle, Microsoft Update, and damaged property owned by a third party. As a consequence of this, the property of many people who will have no knowledge of any of this, may be damaged apparently beyond repair. They have the right to announce that their driver is being used illegitimately. They have the right to have their driver refuse to work in these circumstances. IMHO, they don't have a legal or moral right to modify the target device to prevent it using their driver. The rage is just starting now and will reverberate for a long time. FTDI will regret their actions, at least commercially if not legally. Their genuine products and the clones may be shunned in the market place. They have trashed the reputation of Microsoft's Windows Update. MS may be considering some action of their own. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out. |
||||
| BobD Guru Joined: 07/12/2011 Location: AustraliaPosts: 935 |
Quoting ArsTechnica: a statement from Microsoft. [quote]Yesterday FTDI removed two driver versions from Windows Update. Our engineering team is engaging with FTDI to prevent these problems with their future driver updates via Windows Update. [/quote] It looks like MS damage control has asserted itself and this is being portrayed as a failure. |
||||
| robert.rozee Guru Joined: 31/12/2012 Location: New ZealandPosts: 2428 |
an interesting point just occurred to me: if only the PID was changed, and not the VID, then a future driver release from FTDI could restore functionality to the disabled devices. in a practical sense, microsoft could also release a 'repair' program through the same windoes update channel. with quick action, microsoft could present themselves as the 'knight in shining armour' who saves the day. rob :-) |
||||
Justplayin Guru Joined: 31/01/2014 Location: United StatesPosts: 327 |
Just saw this on Hack A Day: FTDI Screws Up, Backs Down I'm glad that people at FTDI and Microsoft came to their senses. Unfortunately, the damage to their reputations is done. --Curtis I am not a Mad Scientist... It makes me happy inventing new ways to take over the world!! |
||||
| vasi Guru Joined: 23/03/2007 Location: RomaniaPosts: 1697 |
Yeah, the workaround in Linux for bricked FTDI clones is already available for future commits. Probably, Microchip will do the same? Hobbit name: Togo Toadfoot of Frogmorton Elvish name: Mablung Miriel Beyound Arduino Lang |
||||
donmck Guru Joined: 09/06/2011 Location: AustraliaPosts: 1314 |
correcting the URL: http://hackaday.com/2014/10/24/ftdi-screws-up-backs-down/ Trouble is, even the Chinese manufacturers got taken. Chinese Chip suppliers sold these counterfeits to Chinese manufacturers, and the manufacturers were taken down also. I know this for a fact, as I had a Chinese manufacturer replace all of the fake cables that I had received. Of course he dumped his chip supplier, which is the only way of getting rid of counterfeit chip manufacturers. If all suppliers ban the bad guys, the cycle will stop. The reversing of the MS update as agreed by both parties, was a very good idea, but yes, the damage may be done. This is what Olimex and Dontronics believed in April of this year: http://www.dontronics-shop.com/usb-communication-problem-ftd i-ft232r-1213-c-bug-and-workaround.html Yes, that it was a buggy FTDI chip, and not a fake chip. I spent a lot of time and money sorting all of this out, only to find it was a fake chip. Cheers Don... https://www.dontronics.com |
||||
| Keith W. Senior Member  Joined: 09/10/2011 Location: AustraliaPosts: 118 |
So called bricked clone FTDI chips. Are some posters not being a bit carried away? From above the cloned (illegal) chips are not being destroyed but rendered inoperable when used with FTDI drivers. Seemingly when addressed by the driver they are not behaving as would a genuine chip although masquerading as one. They may evidently be resurrected, are not physically destroyed, and I cannot believe that this renders FTDI liable. If users wish to persist with using chips falsely indicating that they are FTDI manufactured chips they now cannot use new FTDI drivers. Chips with their own genuine registration will not be recognised by the operating system as FTDI chips and are unaffected. Keith W. |
||||
| vasi Guru Joined: 23/03/2007 Location: RomaniaPosts: 1697 |
Sorry Keith, they can do whatever they need to do with their drivers but they don't have the right to touch my board in any way, unless they want to buy it. I'm not a user of FTDI chip, but user of two of these products (many are not cheap). Imagine a student, beginner level, with limited financial and material resources or any other newbie. 
But thanks to Linux developers, the bricked boards can work now under Linux (which weren't until the new kernel patch). I guess Microsoft is waiting to see the overall effect (people can continue to use FTDI clones legally under Linux) before forcing FTDI to change their mind. The customer is in no way able to differentiate the chips and will avoid buying future products based on FTDI and because of this, the producers will also avoid FTDI chips, genuine or not. Hobbit name: Togo Toadfoot of Frogmorton Elvish name: Mablung Miriel Beyound Arduino Lang |
||||
| G8JCF Guru Joined: 15/05/2014 Location: United KingdomPosts: 676 |
Vasi Wrote Poverty is no excuse for theft. If it was I'd be rich ! [ Not that I've stolen anything, but I am poor  seeing as how I am a pensioner on a fixed income ]
It seems that the term 'bricked' may have been over used since the devices can be restored to their previous state with relative ease. Bricked usually means, irreversibly altered so that the device no longer works, which is not the case here. I think that if FTDI had simply made that their driver(s) would not work with non-FTDI hardware, then they would have not been the subject of the opprobrium and any question of the legality of their actions would have been mute. A message to the affect that the hardware was not genuine FTDI would have helped explain why the FTDI drivers were not working would also have been useful to help users take action against their supplier(s) of counterfeit product. There is no question that FTDI have made a meal of dealing with the very serious problem of counterfeiting, and that they are now facing a PR disaster. This incident may force h/w manufacturers to find ways of embedding 'something' in their products which enables them to identify that the device is genuine. Also, it may mean that some device manufacturers will no longer manufacture their device in China. At the end of the day, cheap stuff is always going to be suspect - gift horses etc ....... Peter The only Konstant is Change |
||||
| vasi Guru Joined: 23/03/2007 Location: RomaniaPosts: 1697 |
It is an unjust accusation and qualified for suing (I see you are keep saying this). Please look at those commercial boards and tell me if you can accuse a customer and why. Hobbit name: Togo Toadfoot of Frogmorton Elvish name: Mablung Miriel Beyound Arduino Lang |
||||
| G8JCF Guru Joined: 15/05/2014 Location: United KingdomPosts: 676 |
Poverty is no excuse for theft. Is that deniable ? Peter The only Konstant is Change |
||||
| G8JCF Guru Joined: 15/05/2014 Location: United KingdomPosts: 676 |
Marx may have said otherwise, (I'm not sure, and it's very late here in the UK) but I think Marx's philosophy has been discredited completely Peter The only Konstant is Change |
||||
| Page 3 of 4 |
|||||
 Print this page |
 |
The Back Shed's forum code is written, and hosted, in Australia. | © JAQ Software 2025 |
