4 ms·
They claimed they were targeting counterfeit FTDI chips. But in reality they have no way of telling the difference between a counterfeit and a clone in software
by poizan42 4y ago
They claimed they were targeting counterfeit FTDI chips. But in reality they have no way of telling the difference between a counterfeit and a clone in software - after all the only difference is what is written on the IC package/what the seller claims it to be.
- blueflow 4y ago> But in reality they have no way of telling the difference between a counterfeit and a clone in software USB devices have a vendor/product ID that is used for driver selection. The ones for the FTDI and ch340 are different: https://the-sz.com/products/usbid/index.php?v=&p=&n=FTDI https://the-sz.com/products/usbid/index.php?v=&p=&n=FTDI https://the-sz.com/products/usbid/index.php?v=&p=&n=ch340 https://the-sz.com/products/usbid/index.php?v=&p=&n=ch340
- poizan42 4y agoCH430 is not an FTDI clone as far as I can tell, so i'm not sure how this is relevant? If you want existing drivers to "just work" with your clone device[1] then you need to return a vendor and product id it already recognizes. Lying to a computer does not make you a counterfeiter (and copying responses verbatim for interoperability purposes is pretty strongly protected, see e.g. Sega v. Accolade) [1]: After all the whole point of making an FTDI clone instead of just implementing the standard USB communications device class was to get Windows support before Windows 10 introduced support for serial via CDC out-of-the-box.