Rufus, you would have to legally argue two things:
1. That a PID/VID is copyrightable - which only brings with it "who holds the copyright, FTDI or the USB-IF? And if the latter, was FTDI granted the right to effectively police that copyright on USB-IF's behalf?". Though that is part of a larger discussion of whether VID/PID can be seen as intellectual property at all, and is of no consequence to..
2. ..it being used as an 'access control mechanism' under the DMCA; which doesn't apply in all countries in the first place*, and which I think you'll find is not necessarily as strong a defense as you might think; see Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. With that as precedent, you would then have to argue, somehow, that the duplication of PID/VID constitutes a new program if seen within the larger context of the device's entire workings - even though the PID/VID are all that are needed for the driver invocation.
* In Germany, for example, a legal analysis:
http://www.golem.de/news/ftdi-treiber-darf-keine-geraete-deaktivieren-1410-110161.html( I do stress that this is Germany, and a legal analysis - not a court case. In fact, they conclude that even though it may well break German law, FTDI being a Scottish company makes it a cross-border conflict that is not easily fought. )
In many ways I wish there were a lawsuit (preferably in the USA), because it would make for a very interesting court case on things like intent, ownership of (counterfeit) hardware, interoperability laws, intellectual property laws, manufacturer's rights, license agreements (both FTDI and MSFT) applicability both 'as is' and when implied (at best) through automatic update mechanisms, and many, many more.