3 ms·
Your last comment brings this quote to mind: > It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. No
by indiv0 6y ago
Your last comment brings this quote to mind:
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
No one is suggesting encouraging or tolerating theft of intellectual property. People are _discouraging_ vigilante justice against IP thieves.
In this instance, because it harms consumers (an innocent party).
You're arguing against strawmen when you claim that people are arguing for FTDI to support these chips. Instead what people are arguing for is for FTDI to not brick them _intentionally_.
- robomartin 6y agoIf you really take the time to think it through you should conclude that the forcing FTDI to back off is actually as anti-consumer as you can get. It guarantees long-lasting harm to consumers as counterfeiters now know they can continue to push their devices --of any kind, not just FTDI-- without suffering any consequences. In other words, when viewed with a long term perspective the mob actually succeeded at protecting the counterfeiters rather than consumers. That's what people disagreeing with my perspective are missing in this argument. Show me a legitimate scenario where giving counterfeiters a free pass leads to long term (decades) protections for consumers and there might be something to argue about. My quote is far better, BTW: "A man holding a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way" --Mark Twain Most everyone voicing opinions on this thread has zero experience manufacturing products at scale and perhaps even running a non-trivial company. Nobody has held any of these cats by the tail and yet everyone seems to think they understand market and business dynamics. As my wife puts it (she is a doctor): A google search isn't a medical degree.