 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 and Microsoft Are Still At It
  Page 3 of 5   |
|||||
| Author | Message | ||||
| WhiteWizzard Guru  Joined: 05/04/2013 Location: United KingdomPosts: 2934 |
Here in UK, SKY offer a subscription service for around £30 upwards per month depending on what TV channels you want to watch. You can pay well over £100 if you want the 'premium pack'. For this to work, your SKY box has an encoded card (like a credit card). Without this card, the SKY box will not work. OK, I can sell you a 'cloned' card for a one-off fee (as low as £5 if I wanted to) that de-scrambles all TV channels, simply plug it into your SKY box and you save over £100 per month. So you've brought it, so basically you're saying noone has the right to destroy it? Sky will 'disable it' remotely to 'protect' their business. Unless I am missing something, this is all that FTDI are trying to do?? |
||||
| Chris Roper Senior Member  Joined: 19/05/2015 Location: South AfricaPosts: 280 |
Well I am not in Australia/NZ but I am glad that I am in a country that considers "Malicious Damage to Property" a higher priority than "Consumer Rights". Imagine the scenario: "Is that the Consumer Rights Ombudsman? a man put an Axe through my TV and the retailer won't refund the 400 quid" :) Cheers Chris http://caroper.blogspot.com/ |
||||
| JohnS Guru Joined: 18/11/2011 Location: United KingdomPosts: 4039 |
In the UK, the deliberate bricking of chips as in this case is criminal damage. I doubt the police would bother but that's what it is. As FTDI are Scottish I believe. then a private prosecution could be brought (I believe you sue a company director/owner) and I see no possible defence. (That it's a clone chip is no defence at all.) I doubt anyone could be bothered, though, which is sort of a pity as it would be great in the media! Now, FTDI might (that's might) have civil remedies for these clones, though probably not against the typical buyer who doesn't know they've bought a clone. Disabling the chip unilaterally as they do is not going to be a legal remedy. It's a criminal offence. The example regarding Sky is on-going copyright infringement (and I believe also counts as stealing electricity akin to stealing someone's WiFi) and is also a criminal offence. Sky blocking it is hardly the same. Also, you could easily buy a clone FTDI device without knowing (I gather even Olimex did) but you can't say the same about a Sky access card. John |
||||
atmega8 Guru Joined: 19/11/2013 Location: GermanyPosts: 724 |
"So you've brought it, so basically you're saying noone has the right to destroy it?" Yes, no one has the right to destroy or manipulate it. Other technical possibilities are ok. This is in fact a expropriation. Only a souverain State/Government has the right to do this, after legal investigation. Then the tons of Cocain can be burned with public viewing 
"..faced when taking a 'faulty' product back to the supplier - even when well outside the 'warranty period'".. This is also not correct (Only in theory In Germany) because you have to proof that the fault existed from the beginning. No chance. The consumer rights are not worth the paper written on in Germany.. But this is another story... |
||||
| WhiteWizzard Guru Joined: 05/04/2013 Location: United KingdomPosts: 2934 |
Come Chris, lets not get silly 
Taking you scenario: If you walk into the retailer with an axe through your TV, then the retailer will assume you did it! IF you have the proof that it was someone else then you shouldn't be going to the retailer for a refund, but instead go to the police for a criminal damage case. If you can't proof it was someone else then turn to your insurance company and claim 'accidental damage' (not sure what they'll make of the axe story though!). The Consumer Rights Law is there mainly for faulty products that have 'developed' a fault through 'normal' usage. Obviously malicious damage to property should have higher priority than consumer rights. But JohnS raises a valid point about bricking chips being criminal damage. From a discussion point of view, were MicroSoft causing criminal damage to all the 'copies' of MicroSoft Office that were installed in the 80s/90s that they 'disabled' from working/upgrading because of an invalid license key? |
||||
| WhiteWizzard Guru Joined: 05/04/2013 Location: United KingdomPosts: 2934 |
It is a European Law so I am surprised if for some reason Germany is excluded  |
||||
| WhiteWizzard Guru Joined: 05/04/2013 Location: United KingdomPosts: 2934 |
For anyone interested, part of the Consumer Rights Law: Free of charge, two-year guarantee (legal guarantee) Whether you bought the goods in a shop or online, under EU rules you always have the right to a minimum two-year guarantee period at no cost. This 2-year guarantee is only your minimum right and national rules in your country may give you extra protection. Remember that any deviation from EU rules must always be to the consumer's benefit. If an item you bought anywhere in the EU turns out to be faulty or does not look or work as advertised, the seller must repair or replace it free of charge or give you a full refund or reduction in price. In some EU countries you will be offered the choice between all four remedies from the outset. Otherwise you will be able to ask for a full or partial refund only when it is not possible or convenient to repair or replace the item. And bear in mind that you might not be entitled to a refund if the problem is minor, such as a scratch on a CD case. The two-year guarantee period starts as soon as you receive your goods. In some EU countries you must inform the seller of the fault within two months of discovering it otherwise you may lose your right to the guarantee. Within six months from receipt of the goods, you just need to show the trader that they are faulty or not as advertised. But, after six months in most EU countries you also need to prove yourself that the defect already existed on receipt of the goods, for example, by showing that the defect is due to the poor quality of materials used. The trader is always liable for remedying the defect and in some EU countries you also have the right to request a remedy from the producer. |
||||
| Chris Roper Senior Member Joined: 19/05/2015 Location: South AfricaPosts: 280 |
|
||||
| atmega8 Guru Joined: 19/11/2013 Location: GermanyPosts: 724 |
But, after six months in most EU countries you also need to prove yourself that the defect already existed on receipt of the goods, for example, by showing that the defect is due to the poor quality of materials used. Read this, think about it, ................. |
||||
| WhiteWizzard Guru Joined: 05/04/2013 Location: United KingdomPosts: 2934 |
@atmega The line stating: "If an item you bought anywhere in the EU turns out to be faulty or does not look or work as advertised, the seller must repair or replace it free of charge or give you a full refund or reduction in price." will work very much in your favour AFTER 6 months. In Dec 2015 I successfully had my Apple iMac Power Supply swapped out; the iMac was purchased in November 2011. This was only possible because I claimed under the Consumer Law. The PSU was very much working when I purchased the machine but I was able to claim that it should last the the expected duration of the product's life. I had Apple confirm that an iMac has an expected life of 6years . . . Bottom line, know your rights, and don't abuse them; and the law protects the genuine consumer more than they ever realise. The usual thing a shop-keeper will quote you is that 'the product is out of warranty so there is nothing we can do for you' (sometimes this will be quoted after just 28days from purchase). But you the consumer have very powerful laws on your side that most people are just not aware of. In fact, a shopkeeper stating that a product is out of warranty is unknowingly breaking the law! But back to FTDI bricking clones - it is very much a grey area. Yes it may be annoying/illegal, but getting a replacement/refund is now made so much easier (in Europe at least). |
||||
| robert.rozee Guru Joined: 31/12/2012 Location: New ZealandPosts: 2440 |
a minor point that has not bee brought up is: to what degree are FTDI clone chips infringing on FTDI's intellectual rights? my understanding is that the clone chips are NOT a copy of the silicon inside the device, but in fact just a 'work alike' that is implemented in onboard firmware written entirely by the cloner. they are a general-purpose microcontroller programmed to mimic the behaviour of FTDI's devices. the intention is not to steal FTDI's intellectual property, but merely to grab a 'free ride' on the coattails of the FTDI drivers. it is quite plausable that the only illegal copyright infringement is in (a) the arrangement of ink on the top of the chip forming the FTDI logo, and (b) the use of an identical part number. furthermore, it is quite conceivable that internally a clone FTDI chip is identical in almost every single way to a CH340G, with the only difference being the VID/PID. the arguement then becomes: is it reasonable for FTDI to 'cause damage' to devices that are 'pretending to be' FTDI chips? before you answer, beware, the PC you are reading this message on has, at its very heart, a small piece of BIOS code that is doing exactly this, pretending to be a genuine (c)IBM(tm) BIOS. cheers, rob :-) |
||||
Grogster Admin Group  Joined: 31/12/2012 Location: New ZealandPosts: 9599 |
Wow, heated discussions going on here guys. Interesting. 
Some good points being made by all, but Rob's post above about the FTDI clones not actually being a silicon copy is a new bit of info, and if that is indeed the case in that the clones are just a MCU programmed to mimic the FTDI chip, then that becomes something of a grey area legally, as the clones are not in the strictest sence, clones.  Smoke makes things work. When the smoke gets out, it stops! |
||||
BobD Guru Joined: 07/12/2011 Location: AustraliaPosts: 935 |
No matter what is the makeup of the clones / lookalikes, FTDI has the right for their drivers to ignore these devices but not to modify them. They are not the property of FTDI. As others have stated, if FTDI modify these supposed clones to cause them to fail then that is destroying something that is not their property. Depending on the jurisdiction that may be criminal damage. Mind you, I think it would be difficult to press that point, especially from long distance as in AU or NZ. |
||||
bigmik Guru Joined: 20/06/2011 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2949 |
Hi All, OK!! I did some tests today.. I have a win7 box that is running a 2008 version of the FTDI drivers. I opened a new `FTDI' cheapo Chinese adapter and it worked straight away on the 2008 driver Win7 box. (- I have a shorting link between TX and RX) I then put it on my WIN10 (Driver version 22-Jan-2016) laptop and sure enough as Geoff pointed out it reports NON GENUINE DEVICE FOUND! over and over (1 character with each key-press). I then put it back in the 2008 driver win7 box and it still functioned perfectly. So from that I believe that FTDI are NOT destroying or otherwise modifying the `suspect chip' in any way. I believe that it is the driver detecting a non genuine device and refusing to work with said device. I am not a lawyer but I think this is a reasonable approach as FTDI write the driver and release it for use with their FTDI products. If it doesn't work with other manufacturers products what have they done wrong? I read somewhere that the internals are indeed different (there was some photos to prove that).. what the clone manufacturers should do is release their, perfectly working, hardware as a new product with their own PID/VID codes and drivers to suit and all would be well. Regards, Mick Mick's uMite Stuff can be found >>> HERE (Kindly hosted by Dontronics) <<< |
||||
| BobD Guru Joined: 07/12/2011 Location: AustraliaPosts: 935 |
Mick This is what FTDI should have done from the start. Bricking the clones was a silly thing to do and has probably caused them some commercial damage as in people actively avoiding their products. Bob |
||||
| bigmik Guru Joined: 20/06/2011 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2949 |
Bob, All, I couldnt agree more.. It was a terrible mistake on their part.. What they are doing now is more reasonable and justified IMHO BUT it will cause a lot of grief out there to many. Regards, Mick Mick's uMite Stuff can be found >>> HERE (Kindly hosted by Dontronics) <<< |
||||
Geoffg Guru Joined: 06/06/2011 Location: AustraliaPosts: 3287 |
Excellent set of tests Mick. I am with you on this one, the clone manufacturer (and I bet that there is only one) should release their own driver. Geoff Geoff Graham - http://geoffg.net |
||||
| srnet Senior Member Joined: 08/08/2014 Location: United KingdomPosts: 164 |
And to have the driver signed, so that modern versions of Windows will accept it, I believe they have to pay Microsoft a fee. I wonder how much that is ? $50SAT is Silent but probably still working. For information on LoRa visit http://www.loratracker.uk/ |
||||
| WhiteWizzard Guru Joined: 05/04/2013 Location: United KingdomPosts: 2934 |
@srnet US$3,500 - $5,000 fee to usb.org (not MicroSoft ) depending on what option(s) selected. Some options are annual fees too!!
But a 'clone manufacturer' not wishing to pay this fee is not a valid reason to 'clone' and hence full circle back to the point that FTDI are just trying to protect their business.
Hardware/software/IPR can become a very grey area legally when coming to protecting your creation/product/invention. It is actually nice to see someone trying to 'challenge' cheap cloned products for a change IMHO. |
||||
| JohnS Guru Joined: 18/11/2011 Location: United KingdomPosts: 4039 |
There might also be a payment extracted by M$. I expect the clones ought not to use someone else's VID/PID but I'm doubtful it's against the law unless the cloner has a contract not to do it - which they probably don't. Looking like someone else's hardware such that the same driver can be used... wow, I'm not sure what the law would be. It more or less has happened a lot over the years right from AMD, Citrix and people making parallel ports etc for a PC. The BIOS was reverse engineered by a few companies. Apparently that's OK even in USA. Ideally I suppose we'd end up with yet another set of drivers (W7, W10, etc and 32-bit & 64-bit). Just feels like more pesky clutter, but it would avoid the current daftness. However, that way lies zero sales for FTDI. They've sold tons of their chips and must have got back hugely more than their costs long ago, so really they ought to have dropped the price as others do. Then there would have been no clones. Still... we are where we are. I now avoid FTDI, just too much hassle and the others are faster as well as cheaper. John |
||||
| Page 3 of 5 |
|||||
 Print this page |
 |
The Back Shed's forum code is written, and hosted, in Australia. | © JAQ Software 2025 |
