 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 4 of 5   |
|||||
| Author | Message | ||||
| JohnS Guru  Joined: 18/11/2011 Location: United KingdomPosts: 4038 |
Beats me why it's a grey area. It's illegal. They're likely to get away with it, though at the cost of annoying a lot of people and companies. John |
||||
| JohnS Guru Joined: 18/11/2011 Location: United KingdomPosts: 4038 |
Ah - that's a change. With a newer (than 2008) W7 they actively bricked the chip. Pretty miserable for the user. Interesting stuff. Can't see me going back to FTDI unless they make a better device that's also cost-competitive. They fail on both of those right now. John |
||||
| robert.rozee Guru Joined: 31/12/2012 Location: New ZealandPosts: 2437 |
if you have a look here: https://github.com/sergev/pic32prog/blob/master/bitbang/ICSP_v1E.ino you will see that the source file contains the message "(c) Robert Rozee 2015". the ascii ICSP protocol specifications and source code are NOT explicitly released under any sort of GPL licence. all quite legitimate, as i chose to place the code within pic32prog, and in freely doing so myself legitimized the inclusion. if one were to consider the FTDI actions justified, then one would tacitly be suggesting that i would be equally justified myself to modify pic32prog (or take other equivalent action) such that it would 'brick' any 1455 or MM-based reimplementation that i had not explicitly approved. note, i would never ever do anything like this. but notionally such action would be no worse than what FTDI are doing. would you not agree? cheers, rob :-) |
||||
| srnet Senior Member  Joined: 08/08/2014 Location: United KingdomPosts: 164 |
Beats me too why anyone could think its a grey area. Companies like FTDI do not have worldwide judicial powers to seek out and destroy stuff. $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 |
Its a 'grey' area because there is no definitive law. As for 'destroying stuff', FTDI are only trying to prevent the 'cloned' part from working - i.e. not destroying the 'whole' gadget that the cloned FTDI part is attached to. If FTDI are able to prevent the driver from working on a cloned chip then I fully support that - too many companies get away with fakes/copies IMHO making a mockery of the manufacturing industry. There is also a big difference between 'bricking' and 'prevent the driver working' which is a lesson they learnt the hard way. I still don't see why people are saying it is ok to copy products; and insist that FTDI should not try to stop cloned products of theirs from working. Remember, anybody (or company/manufacturer) using a genuine FTDI part won't have an issue with any of this. And as a consumer, you have rights for a refund if a product you purchased has a 'cloned' part. |
||||
| HankR Senior Member Joined: 02/01/2015 Location: United StatesPosts: 209 |
I have been following this thread from the beginning. I totally support the notion WW is trying to make that the fraudulent fake parts people are the villains. They are the ones who should be feeling the ire of people who have run into troubles with the illegal fake parts, because branding a functionally identical part, whether or not it's new silicon or theft of FTDI silicon, with the FTDI logo and part numbers is a violation of law. It's a crime, and the fake parts makers are CRIMINALS. They are the ones people should be angry with. The FTDI action of bricking was probably not a good idea, but I think designing drivers that will not work with illegal, fraudulent fake parts is perfectly okay. In fact I, as an end user, would like to know if I've been victimized by thinking I have bought a real FTDI part when in fact it's a fake, fraudulent, and illegal part. Hank |
||||
| HankR Senior Member Joined: 02/01/2015 Location: United StatesPosts: 209 |
One more thought: FTDI is a victim in this. The bad guys are the fake parts producers who are victimizing manufacturers, legitimate distributors, and end users. Basically everyone. |
||||
| JohnS Guru Joined: 18/11/2011 Location: United KingdomPosts: 4038 |
You've taken out the context, which was the bricking of parts. That is NOT a grey area. It is criminal damage. Nothing grey about that. If you think it's grey please explain which part of the law relating to criminal damage you're meaning. Please quote the relevant section number(s). I've never seen claims that criminal law is not definitive like you post but do explain with reference to the actual law! John |
||||
| robert.rozee Guru Joined: 31/12/2012 Location: New ZealandPosts: 2437 |
as far as i am aware, the FTDI drivers do not check the printing on top of the clone chips to verify if the FTDI logo or part number is present. nor do the drivers arrive at any considered legal determination before proceeding with any countermeasures. the clone chip could have absolutely no markings that could identify it. indeed, it could have "AMI BIOS" printed on top, as did the clone BIOSes in 95% of PCs throughout the 1990's. i also wonder, what would happen if microsoft teamed up with intel so that an automatically distributed Windows update reduced Windows to printing "Not Genuine Intel Inside" if an AMD clone processor was detected? cheers, rob :-) |
||||
| JohnS Guru Joined: 18/11/2011 Location: United KingdomPosts: 4038 |
That does not allow criminal damage. FTDI potentially have legal remedies (e.g. if their chips have been illegally cloned, which is not at all proven) but criminal damage is not one of their legal remedies. Of course if the chips are re-engineered then FTDI may have no legal remedy and then would not even be a victim. John |
||||
| Chris Roper Senior Member Joined: 19/05/2015 Location: South AfricaPosts: 280 |
I don't think that anyone on this list disagrees with that sentiment. What we do disagree with is that FTDI are penalising and hurting the end user, who may be well down the chain from the company that made the fake parts. By maliciously damaging the equipment they are not hurting the criminals but rather the victims in most cases. But as has been said many times by many people on may technical forums, in the end they hurt themselves because it is easier to just stop specifying FTDI in your parts list than to risk contamination of your supply chain. Cheers Chris http://caroper.blogspot.com/ |
||||
atmega8 Guru Joined: 19/11/2013 Location: GermanyPosts: 724 |
Back to the roots, it is simply not allowed to destroy someone's property. Point.... |
||||
| srnet Senior Member Joined: 08/08/2014 Location: United KingdomPosts: 164 |
So who was it that said it was OK to copy products ? $50SAT is Silent but probably still working. For information on LoRa visit http://www.loratracker.uk/ |
||||
Grogster Admin Group  Joined: 31/12/2012 Location: New ZealandPosts: 9595 |
Wow. Interesting discussion still going on here, folks. 
It's certainly a difficult issue. I think that FTDI are well within their rights to have their driver refuse to work with a competing product that is trying to pass itself off as a genuine FTDI part - cloned die or custom MCU both. This bit I agree with, as why should FTDI allow a 3rd party to hop onto their driver, for a part manifesting itself as FTDI when it is, in fact, not. All that is fair enough, IMHO. Having said that, the difficulty now comes to the fore, because as others here have correctly pointed out, the end-user has no idea of this situation till they plug in the thing, and the supplier even in many cases, would have no idea that they have fake parts in their product till the FTDI driver starts doing it's thing, and customers complain. I guess the only way around this problem, is to guarantee you buy genuine, and the only way you can do that, would be to buy direct from FTDI. Others here have also mentioned the cheapness of the likes of the CH340, and that too is a very viable way forward, as they don't have that issue - yet. Smoke makes things work. When the smoke gets out, it stops! |
||||
| robert.rozee Guru Joined: 31/12/2012 Location: New ZealandPosts: 2437 |
what if the CH340G turns out to be an FTDI-workalike with just a different VID/PID programmed? i don't know if it is, or if it is not, but what if it is? would the FTDI driver then be justified in quietly hunting down what it deems to be 'illegal CH340G' hardware and disabling it? when running, a device driver is not limited to only interacting with hardware containing a matching VID/PID, it can scan for absolutely anything. similarly, Office365 could quietly look for installed instances of Open Office or Libre Office. there is almost certainly chunks of IP in these packages that microsoft considers to be in violation of their copyrights. and i do recall that some time ago the were discussions of linux containing code that microsoft lays claim to. today, having a piece of software hunt over a network for another piece of software resident on a remote computer or device is quite viable. of course, anti-virus software offers some protection against this on Windows platforms; how many of you rely on microsoft's own 'security essentials' for this service? it is a very VERY slippery slope we are playing at the top of. cheers, rob :-) |
||||
Lou Senior Member Joined: 01/02/2014 Location: United StatesPosts: 229 |
OK, so FTDI is out. Now what?? Do we have a solution we can all hang our hat on?? Would MicroBlocks PIC16F1455 work for a basic USB to Rx/Tx console interface?? Or maybe the MCP2200 MicroBlocks suggested earlier with a suitable board?? I would be interested if someone layed out a board to do the job. I'm currently using the SparkFun board with an FTDI chip for MM console interface with Windows 7. Lou Microcontrollers - the other white meat |
||||
MicroBlocks Guru Joined: 12/05/2012 Location: ThailandPosts: 2209 |
Lou, I did just that. 
I had some difficulty with pcb production/assembly so i decided to assemble them myself. It will probably be beginning of march when they are ready. 9.95US$ for the module as seen in the picture. 4.95USD for a preprogrammed DIP package chip. Shipping 2US$. As a bonus it can act also as a programmer for the PIC32 range of chips. Nearest comparison from sparkfun is this: https://www.sparkfun.com/products/9873 It doesn't have a separate voltage regulator though so it can not really power much as it is using the 3.3v out from the chip which is absolute maximum capable of 50ma. Microblocks. Build with logic. |
||||
| WhiteWizzard Guru Joined: 05/04/2013 Location: United KingdomPosts: 2934 |
So what do we all think of this . . . . |
||||
| MicroBlocks Guru Joined: 12/05/2012 Location: ThailandPosts: 2209 |
Well i know how i think about Apple bricking my perfectly good Ipad 1 with a software update. Microblocks. Build with logic. |
||||
| robert.rozee Guru Joined: 31/12/2012 Location: New ZealandPosts: 2437 |
i'd judge that many folks would consider this quite reasonable. the repairs have almost certainly been carried out using illegal fake components that violate Apple's IP, and the company is just protecting it's business. even if a product only detects that a tamper switch has been activated, it is a fair assumption that if the product has been opened up by an unauthorized repairer then illegal fake counterfeit components have been inserted. companies do, after all, need to protect their business models. no doubt everyone has heard about the new range of motorcars that are about to hit the roads, that detect the brand of petrol the owners use? you see, all petrol these days is infused with coded micro-dots. if the car engine detects illegal fake counterfeit politicall-unacceptable use of competing fuels the motocar will self-destruct using a powerful explosive device embedded under the drivers seat. this is all ok, as the company is merely protecting their business model. cheers, rob :-) |
||||
| Page 4 of 5 |
|||||
 Print this page |
 |
The Back Shed's forum code is written, and hosted, in Australia. | © JAQ Software 2025 |
