Again, I'd say that needs to be proven. Isn't the sequence generally something like:
chip maker -> device maker -> distributor -> retail chain -> local store -> cashier who actually carries out transaction -> buyer
Exactly how far along that chain does knowledge of counterfeit go?
All the way to the end. If the price is 'too good to be true' then the customer knows.
Look, counterfeiting is wrong. But destroying the property of an end user, most likely unaware of the counterfeit device, is both wrong and illegal. Period.
Actually, counterfeiting is also both wrong and illegal. Period.
What? So if I shoot my neighbor,
What the hell is it with everyone using violent crime analogies? What does shooting someone have anything at all to do with a company issuing a firmware update that disables unlicensed counterfeit chips?
Everyone loves a strawman argument. And 'shooting my neighbour' is an extreme strawman.
They make the drivers, they sell the legitimate chips, seems fair to me.