There's the rub. For your analogy to work, it would need to read something like this:
Let's say you take your car (a Honda, for example) into a dealership and they see that it's not actually a car manufactured by them, but a car that copied their designs and sells cheap knockoffs with 'Honda' written in all the right places, and change proprietary settings in the car electronics so that the car won't start. No physical damage was done, so it's all good.

No, it's not right and it shouldn't have happened. But caveat emptor.

Actually, what I said was:

I'll say it again. FTDI went about this the wrong way, but just as ignorance of the law isn't a defense, a consumer's ignorance of technology shouldn't require a manufacturer to support those who steal their designs and profit from them.

Since (based on what you wrote) you misunderstood my statement, I'll explain. I make two points:
1. FTDI blundered badly (whether that bites them with legal action, we'll have to see) by having their driver reset the PIDs of counterfeited FTD232 chips to '0'.
2. Many folks posting on this thread (not you, BTW) seem to be making the argument that FTDI should somehow suck it up and support counterfeited chips with their drivers. That isn't the case, IMHO. Caveat emptor.

You pointed out that:

Now, however, you take that 'technically ignorant user' who went out and bought say 3 x 4GB USB dongles that happened to have fake FTDI chips in them, unaware of that fact of course, who then copies his business critical data, say 3 years worth of work, onto all 3 of them (for safe keeping)... then his machine auto-updates his driver (because, again, he's a technically ignorant user) and suddenly he can't get to his data... in fact, again, technically ignorant, he tries all 3 dongles (if the first one fails, try the backup(s) right?)

[emphasis added]

As TFA (and much of the discussion here) points out, the chip in question (FTD232) is a USB/Serial converter (UART) and isn't used for flash drives -- nor is the driver, so your example isn't realistic. Sure, modifying the PID will inconvenience users, but it doesn't put anyone's data at risk.

The updated driver modified the PID setting (to a value of '0') on hardware not manufactured by FTDI that was using FTDI's assigned VID/PID.

One more time: I do not think that FTDI did the right thing and I suspect it will come back to bite them in the ass. But FTDI did not damage anyone's hardware.

Is reading comprehension an issue for you? I said, and I quote:

this will likely produce a nasty backlash against FTDI, as they went about this the wrong way.

Or is it just that you want to argue with someone?

You know, I was thinking of using a similar analogy myself. However, the analogy just doesn't fit, so I bagged the idea.

A better analogy would be that you bought a car from a dealer who claimed it was a Ford, but when you took it in to the actual Ford dealership, they checked and found that it was a Yugo (yes, I'm old) masquerading as a Ford.

Under those circumstances, it makes no sense to get all butthurt that Ford won't service the car -- they didn't produce it.

Whether or not the Ford dealer has the right to remove any logos or other identifiers (like the USB PID) that make the Yugo look like a Ford is another question. And the answer is probably not, IMHO. But that doesn't mean Ford needs to service such a vehicle, does it?

We are clearly in agreement here except on a single point: changing the PID is neither attacking the firmware nor damaging the hardware. After a PID change, the hardware (and firmware) is still functional -- as long as either some driver can recognize it or the PID is reset to a valid ID.

It may be that FTDI was unable (or unwilling) to find a way for their driver to stop supporting the counterfeited chips, so they just removed the mask (the PID) on the chip that claimed the counterfeits were genuine. That's not damaging the hardware or the firmware, merely modifying an embedded setting.

All that said, FTDI's actions were not appropriate -- and they will likely end up paying for it in the court of public opinion. However, FTDI's driver did not damage or harm the chips themselves -- and they certainly weren't (as some here have claimed) "bricked."

Let's leave aside the folks who actually disagree and want to argue about it. Those are *not* trolls. Nor should they be considered to be trolls.

There are a small number of people who delight in screwing with others. Those are the trolls. They're the people who soaped your windows or TP'd your house on Halloween. They are unpleasant, annoying and sometimes downright nauseating.

However, if we wish to have a free society (I know, it's a pipe dream), then we need to have freedom of expression. Freedom of expression doesn't end just because someone is being a jerk.

Those who act like jerks should be shamed in the forum in which they act thusly. Those who prefer rational, considered discourse should ignore such folks and move on.

tl;dr: Don't feed the trolls. They will eventually go away.

I didn't say it was fair. In fact, I said it was rather underhanded. That said, the manufacturer should provide a driver for their hardware. But that would require more work than just copying someone else's design, wouldn't it?

Given that FTDI invested in the R&D to design the chip and write the driver, I would expect that they should be able to decide if they want their driver to work with chips made by other manufacturers.

I'll say it again. FTDI went about this the wrong way, but just as ignorance of the law isn't a defense, a consumer's ignorance of technology shouldn't require a manufacturer to support those who steal their designs and profit from them.

I tell you what, go ahead and develop a new device and start selling it. I'll copy your design and sell it for 25% of your price, and instruct users to install your software for the device. If you make any attempt to stop me with your software, I'll blame you and suggest you be sued. Sound good?

I'll say it one more time -- FTDI went about this the wrong way.

Their driver should just ignore any device that it can detect as counterfeit and produce an error suggesting that the user contact the actual manufacturer for a driver. Assuming there is no such driver, then the consumer is hosed.

If these manufacturers are legitimate, why are they forcing their customers to use a third-party driver from FTDI?

As I said, it was rather underhanded. However, they are not breaking anything. The device is still fully functional, but won't work with drivers that were made for the real chips.

If you have a problem, contact the actual chip manufacturer or someone along the supply chain to where you purchased the counterfeit and ask for their driver.

What? The manufacturer didn't expend any resources in creating drivers for the chips they manufactured? Sounds like a pretty crappy manufacturer. Perhaps you should use hardware that has drivers instead, no?

Except the chip wasn't, as you put it, "killed." The chip is still fully functional with a driver that will support it. That FTDI doesn't want to support counterfeited chips with the driver it developed for the real article is reasonable.

Why should FTDI support chips it didn't make?

As I previously mentioned, no real damage is done to the hardware. Various tools are available to resolve the issue and the device itself is not damaged.

That said, this will likely produce a nasty backlash against FTDI, as they went about this the wrong way.

At the same time, resetting the PID points up the counterfeit chip without any ambiguity. I guess that was the point.

I would say that modifying the PID on the chip is pretty far from "intentional and willful destruction." From one of the comments in the support board posting masquerading as TFA:

The driver reprograms the product ID so it won't work.

Price of buying fake chips.

If that is the case you can easily bind the new VID/PID to the correct driver in Linux and it should still work:

Code: [Select]

A vid/pid pair can be added dynamically using sysfs, for example:

echo 0403 1234 >/sys/bus/usb-serial/drivers/ftdi_sio/new_id


Again, if that is the only "damage" done, lsusb should help you find the device, or just monitoring dmesg as you attach it.

And

The new Windows driver reprograms the PID to 0.

More info here:

http://forum.arduino.cc/index....

While it is rather underhanded, had FTDI done this the *correct* way and just interrogated the chip and refused to work with a fake, this would be a non-story. At the same time, just modifying the PID is far from "destroying" the device. If FTDI's driver did something that actually did damage to the hardware, I might be more sympathetic. That's not to say that I think FTDI did the right thing, just that the did not actually damage or "brick" anything. The device isn't broken, it just needs to have its PID reset. Once that happens (and I guess that's what FTDI was trying to do), the end user will be painfully aware that they have a counterfeit chip.

As I said, poorly executed and likely to cause some backlash, but no hardware is damaged or destroyed. Unless you're an idiot.

Last week. Video is here.

Might as well get it from the horse's mouth, no?