No you don't understand photocopiers will literally brick themselves (only certain models that are a "threat") and if any official tech ever sees the error code (the machine locks out as well and requires service to be unlocked) the legal hammer would come shortly. (Counterfeiting is illegal, no contract is required)
FTDI would be classified as "bricking" the counterfeit chips if they went and messed around with the clock configs to either overclock/source a non-existent clock or just corrupt the entire NV memory. Changing the PID to 0 is not damaging anything. The device won't ever work with the stock FTDI drivers and requires a 3rd party driver to work.
A breaking a non-compete isn't criminal nor uniform, counterfeiting of physical goods is typically very illegal in most of the world.
You're mistaking having a legal argument for being judge, jury and executioner. Whether or not FTDI is "right" or not doesn't matter as either way it fails to give them the legal ground to automatically
enforce a decision to destroy the offending device (this would be akin to the owner of a port being the person that decides to seize a shipment of a device he knows infringes on a friend's product, which also happens to be a version of tortious interference). That would be FTDI acting with the same authority as the government agency that
actually has the judicial power to do such a thing. Additionally, there's been plenty of posts that get into what likely constitutes "bricked" in the real-world for an average user vs. semantics. You've simply invented your own self-assured definition. It's unlikely to hold up in a court (at least in the U.S.) but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Which is all besides the point anyway. I wasn't even talking about the difference of criminal vs. civil cases. I was
only talking about EULAs. Anyone assuming that because joe-blow production manager demanded an EULA clause be inserted that
technically allows FTDI's driver to destroy
anything that looks like a fake they're all set from a legal standpoint has not thought this through real hard. FTDI's actions are not only (likely) unconscionable but show specific intent. Hell, you might even have gross negligence from failure to inform the end-user as to the action that is being taken. As someone else here or on hackaday has mentioned, the court case almost writes itself.