Wow, 1400 guests viewing this thread!
If someone has a fake, can you check the chips serial number(not the USBID number, not serial stored in external eeprom)?
Each of the chips has a unique serial number ( it can be read), it could be the fakes all have the same serial number because they were too lazy/cheap to laser cut / program it.
What did he use the FTDI IC for?
That's the whole point. He used a fake chip... or a fake elephant. Or something. Or the real elephant came back and trampled the fake ivory because it wasn't real.
You see?
Again: the only fake thing about the 'counterfeit' chips is the FTDI logo on them. The rest is 100% different so it doesn't infringe any copyrights, patents or whatever.
No. It's an IC plus a driver. And the clone is infringing on the software license agreement. There would be no issue if the clone ICs supplied their own driver. But they're not. They are using/stealing FTDI's driver in total violation of the licensing agreement. Buy the FTDI chip - use the driver, gratis. Otherwise, write your own driver.
No. It's an IC plus a driver. And the clone is infringing on the software license agreement. There would be no issue if the clone ICs supplied their own driver. But they're not. They are using/stealing FTDI's driver in total violation of the licensing agreement. Buy the FTDI chip - use the driver, gratis. Otherwise, write your own driver.
The driver has absolutely no way of checking whether the chip says FTDI on it or not, so it cannot assume that every one that fails the "is it genuine" check (anyone here with a USB analyser and both the real and clone chips care to do some analysis on figuring out what exactly is the behavioural difference?) is illegally using the trademark and not just some generic brand.
USB-CDC should be standard by now; surely some cheap chinese chip consortium could spend some time rolling a cheap CDC chip for the masses?
That's a perfect argument for the driver to detect that the chip is not genuine and then to refuse to operate with it.
And that's exactly what FDTI have done here... or not.
Perhaps FTDI support are just tired of having to support someone else's faulty hardware with their drivers and decided to solve the problem.
If I can remotely brick the MacBook air that was stolen from me, why can't FTDI brick their stolen hardware?
If I can remotely brick the MacBook air that was stolen from me, why can't FTDI brick their stolen hardware?
If it turns out to be true using their products as become very risky. A simple screwup anywhere down the purchasing chain could lead to potential disaster. I would have to redesign a few products that add up to about 3000 FTDI chips per year, mostly FT232R and some others.
Because the MacBook is yours.
The other would be like Apple bricking any third party MacOS compliant system.
Alexander.
Which Microsoft et. el. do all the time if they detect a fake serial (or Vendor ID in FTDI case.)
Should Vishay be able to remotely brick your MacBook air if it contains a counterfeit resistor?
Anyone know an alternative?
No they don;t. They disable the stolen goods (e.g. unauthorized Windows copy). They are not killing the hardware containing the stolen goods.
Alexander.
If I can remotely brick the MacBook air that was stolen from me, why can't FTDI brick their stolen hardware?
Should Vishay be able to remotely brick your MacBook air if it contains a counterfeit resistor?
As a design engineer I have no control of my supply chain of parts, this is handled by a 3rd party.
Now if the 3rd party sources a fake chip I am screwed.
As it is out of my control the consequence is simple: no more FTDI in my designs.
For personal and/or lab use (we consume quite a few of these cables here, test engineers always manage to blow stuff up..) I am definitely not going to buy any FTDI anymore! I cannot spend my time researching whether a device contains a legit or a fake chip.
Now I am working on a new design, but I'd like to retain a USB -> TTL serial chip with drivers available on Windows Update.
As far as I know the Prolific PL2303 does not have a driver on Windows Update, am I right? I find this chip also hard to source locally for prototypes (EU based, so I prefer Farnell).
Anyone know an alternative?
Which Microsoft et. el. do all the time if they detect a fake serial (or Vendor ID in FTDI case.)
Should Vishay be able to remotely brick your MacBook air if it contains a counterfeit resistor?
Why not? Although inconvenience, I would just get a refund from Apple. Who in that case would be in the wrong, not Vishay.
Which Microsoft et. el. do all the time if they detect a fake serial (or Vendor ID in FTDI case.)
Do they?
should you scream bloody murder if they _try_ to give you that free service, but fill oil pan with brake fluid due to differences between real and fake one?
Should Vishay be able to remotely brick your MacBook air if it contains a counterfeit resistor?
Why not? Although inconvenience, I would just get a refund from Apple. Who in that case would be in the wrong, not Vishay.
Suuuuure.
This isn't "FTDI's driver accidentally damages clones". FTDI's driver contains code blatantly, explicitly, and clearly designed to damage clones.