5 ms·

Nobody's complaining that FTDI didn't make their drivers compatible with counterfeit hardware. They're complaining that FTDI deliberately took actions in their

Nobody's complaining that FTDI didn't make their drivers compatible with counterfeit hardware. They're complaining that FTDI deliberately took actions in their driver code to damage any supposedly counterfeit devices that were plugged into a system. To use your example, imagine if Apple released an update to iOS that would scan any jailbroken iPhones on the same network, and if it detected one, would use a backdoor to send it malware that wipes the device's bootloader.

robomartin 6y ago
One bad example after another. Why is this so hard for folks to grasp. The proper example would be fake iPhones made in Switzerland sold in the US as through they were real iPhones. If that's the case, then, YES, Apple would be right to brick them with an update. Absolutely. I ask again: In what alternate reality would Apple be required to allow fake iPhones, look the other way and just let them be?
- kd5bjo 6y ago
  Your example is also off, because we’re talking about an internal component rather than an entire device. If a repair shop doesn’t use a Genuine Apple replacement screen, does Apple have to support it? No. Is going out of their way to physically destroy these replacement screens anti-consumer behavior? Yes. A key point here is that it’s impossible for the malicious driver to know what representation the seller made to the consumer— the presence of a nonoriginal part doesn’t necessarily mean there was any fraud involved. Edit to add: > ... fake iPhones made in Switzerland sold in the US as through they were real iPhones. If that's the case, then, YES, Apple would be right to brick them with an update. Absolutely. Only after obtaining a court order to that effect. Destroying someone else’s property without due process is generally not acceptable, regardless of how right you are. To step away from technology for a moment, is it ok for a glassmaker to go around town breaking windows because they’re allegedly made with counterfeit glass?
  - robomartin 6y ago
    Read my comment about how there are at least two separable problems in this issue. Perhaps then my position will make sense to you. Continuing to argue through hypothetical examples is pointless, it's getting sillier and sillier and farther away from key issues. Counterfeit goods is not a victimless crime. It costs jobs. It costs progress. It costs entire industries. Don't blame the victim. Consumers just happen to be caught in the middle of what, at the end of the day, is a political mess. One could argue consumers are the victims of politicians and their terrible policies. That's where this gets complicated and we could end-up understanding that the FTDI problem has its genesis a decade or two ago. I mean, what's FTDI supposed to do? Shut down and let the fakes take the market? What would happen to quality, reliability and support then? A business like FTDI doesn't run on pink unicorns. If fakes destroy their market they are out, a bunch of people lose their jobs and good luck with support for any chip or predictable performance and quality from anyone. The choices we make have consequences in the short and long term. This is just a microcosm of what the world has allowed China to get away with.
    - kd5bjo 6y ago
      > I mean, what's FTDI supposed to do? I’m not saying that FTDI or a similar company should sit idly by, but the vigilante justice you’re advocating leads to bad places. We have customs enforcement to stop goods at the border and a court system to deal with internal disputes; use them.
      - robomartin 6y ago
        > We have customs enforcement to stop goods at the border and a court system to deal with internal disputes It's a joke, right? This system has allowed everything from fake hats to fake, well, everything, to come into the country undeterred. Amazon and eBay are full of the stuff. It's so brazen that they are not shipping fakes directly into the US through highly subsidized door-to-door shipping using the US Postal Service. And you want them to police an obscure little chip out of millions that come through the gates? My friend, our system is powerless against the onslaught...and they know it. Sure, a few things get nabbed here and there. This is a rounding error at the scale and breath of what's going on.
- IAmEveryone 6y ago
  > I ask again: In what alternate reality In that alternative reality where, for example, mobile phone carriers are required to allow 911 calls even if your account is otherwise locked because you fraudulently paid with someone else's credit card.
  - robomartin 6y ago
    I can play that game too. The fakes are so bad there is no telling if you are going to be able to reach 911 or, if you do, they don't report correct GPS coordinates. 9.2% of the people who call 911 never get through and 3.05% die. Even NADCAR races have a limited number of laps for a reason. We can go around and around this silly pile of hypothetical cases and lose complete sight of the fact that the root cause of the problem is intellectual property theft at a massive scale and that this has serious consequences. The FTDI issue is but a rounding error in this massive global mess. Let's not blame the victim. That is not what a fair society does.
    - jstanley 6y ago
      In this entire thread, you seem to be misinterpreting "fake chips are bad, but FTDI shouldn't brick them on purpose" as "fake chips are good, and FTDI is bad". That is why you are struggling to understand what everyone else is saying.
      - foldr 6y ago
        No, I think his point is that fake chips win by default if nothing can be done to disincentivize their manufacture and use. Law enforcement isn't cracking down on fake chips. So what else is FTDI to do if they're to survive as a business? You are fixated on what's best for the consumer in the short term, but the long term consequence of that could be that FTDI goes out of business and can't support any chips, fake or not.
        sokoloff 6y ago
        I have no problem with FTDI making their Windows driver not work with clone devices, but leaving that device undamaged and working once removed and plugged into a different machine. That is a reasonable action and would be enough to cause at least one more round of cat and mouse with the clone makers, putting a massive dent into their economics. If they’d done that, it might have given FTDI a positive reputation (like the top brands of Taiwanese capacitors) instead of this self-inflicted punch-in-the-face. I’m just a hobbyist (50-100 boards/year) and so don’t matter to FTDI economics, but CH340s go in my devices now because I don’t trust FTDI at all.

robomartin 6y ago

One bad example after another. Why is this so hard for folks to grasp. The proper example would be fake iPhones made in Switzerland sold in the US as through they were real iPhones. If that's the case, then, YES, Apple would be right to brick them with an update. Absolutely. I ask again: In what alternate reality would Apple be required to allow fake iPhones, look the other way and just let them be?

kd5bjo 6y ago
Your example is also off, because we’re talking about an internal component rather than an entire device. If a repair shop doesn’t use a Genuine Apple replacement screen, does Apple have to support it? No. Is going out of their way to physically destroy these replacement screens anti-consumer behavior? Yes. A key point here is that it’s impossible for the malicious driver to know what representation the seller made to the consumer— the presence of a nonoriginal part doesn’t necessarily mean there was any fraud involved. Edit to add: > ... fake iPhones made in Switzerland sold in the US as through they were real iPhones. If that's the case, then, YES, Apple would be right to brick them with an update. Absolutely. Only after obtaining a court order to that effect. Destroying someone else’s property without due process is generally not acceptable, regardless of how right you are. To step away from technology for a moment, is it ok for a glassmaker to go around town breaking windows because they’re allegedly made with counterfeit glass?
- robomartin 6y ago
  Read my comment about how there are at least two separable problems in this issue. Perhaps then my position will make sense to you. Continuing to argue through hypothetical examples is pointless, it's getting sillier and sillier and farther away from key issues. Counterfeit goods is not a victimless crime. It costs jobs. It costs progress. It costs entire industries. Don't blame the victim. Consumers just happen to be caught in the middle of what, at the end of the day, is a political mess. One could argue consumers are the victims of politicians and their terrible policies. That's where this gets complicated and we could end-up understanding that the FTDI problem has its genesis a decade or two ago. I mean, what's FTDI supposed to do? Shut down and let the fakes take the market? What would happen to quality, reliability and support then? A business like FTDI doesn't run on pink unicorns. If fakes destroy their market they are out, a bunch of people lose their jobs and good luck with support for any chip or predictable performance and quality from anyone. The choices we make have consequences in the short and long term. This is just a microcosm of what the world has allowed China to get away with.
  - kd5bjo 6y ago
    > I mean, what's FTDI supposed to do? I’m not saying that FTDI or a similar company should sit idly by, but the vigilante justice you’re advocating leads to bad places. We have customs enforcement to stop goods at the border and a court system to deal with internal disputes; use them.
    - robomartin 6y ago
      > We have customs enforcement to stop goods at the border and a court system to deal with internal disputes It's a joke, right? This system has allowed everything from fake hats to fake, well, everything, to come into the country undeterred. Amazon and eBay are full of the stuff. It's so brazen that they are not shipping fakes directly into the US through highly subsidized door-to-door shipping using the US Postal Service. And you want them to police an obscure little chip out of millions that come through the gates? My friend, our system is powerless against the onslaught...and they know it. Sure, a few things get nabbed here and there. This is a rounding error at the scale and breath of what's going on.
IAmEveryone 6y ago
> I ask again: In what alternate reality In that alternative reality where, for example, mobile phone carriers are required to allow 911 calls even if your account is otherwise locked because you fraudulently paid with someone else's credit card.
- robomartin 6y ago
  I can play that game too. The fakes are so bad there is no telling if you are going to be able to reach 911 or, if you do, they don't report correct GPS coordinates. 9.2% of the people who call 911 never get through and 3.05% die. Even NADCAR races have a limited number of laps for a reason. We can go around and around this silly pile of hypothetical cases and lose complete sight of the fact that the root cause of the problem is intellectual property theft at a massive scale and that this has serious consequences. The FTDI issue is but a rounding error in this massive global mess. Let's not blame the victim. That is not what a fair society does.
  - jstanley 6y ago
    In this entire thread, you seem to be misinterpreting "fake chips are bad, but FTDI shouldn't brick them on purpose" as "fake chips are good, and FTDI is bad". That is why you are struggling to understand what everyone else is saying.
    - foldr 6y ago
      No, I think his point is that fake chips win by default if nothing can be done to disincentivize their manufacture and use. Law enforcement isn't cracking down on fake chips. So what else is FTDI to do if they're to survive as a business? You are fixated on what's best for the consumer in the short term, but the long term consequence of that could be that FTDI goes out of business and can't support any chips, fake or not.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        I have no problem with FTDI making their Windows driver not work with clone devices, but leaving that device undamaged and working once removed and plugged into a different machine. That is a reasonable action and would be enough to cause at least one more round of cat and mouse with the clone makers, putting a massive dent into their economics. If they’d done that, it might have given FTDI a positive reputation (like the top brands of Taiwanese capacitors) instead of this self-inflicted punch-in-the-face. I’m just a hobbyist (50-100 boards/year) and so don’t matter to FTDI economics, but CH340s go in my devices now because I don’t trust FTDI at all.