5 ms·

No, that's not the case here. Fake FTDI chips are going to be used in absolutely everything, products from Alibaba to name brand professional stuff. It's pretty

by 13 12y ago

No, that's not the case here. Fake FTDI chips are going to be used in absolutely everything, products from Alibaba to name brand professional stuff. It's pretty much guaranteed not everybody has complete control of their semiconductor supply chain, and even if they do there's an incentive for all companies to cut costs where they can. A consumer buying a product doesn't make an informed decision about the type of serial interface in their devices, much less whether it's genuine or not. There's an expectation that the product will work and that falls on the manufacturer, who might not even be responsible either.

sliverstorm 12y ago
It shares the critical element of diffuse responsibility. Everyone can half-reasonably shrug their shoulders and say, "Well it isn't MY fault". If a Sony product happens to have a fake FTDI chip in it, this is FTDI's way of incentivizing Sony (via angry customers) to manage their supply chain, because as you say there's an incentive even for Sony to cut costs where they can- perhaps by turning a blind eye when they get some suspicious batches of chips for a great price, and claiming ignorance later... Everyone, in demanding the lowest price no matter what (all the way up the supply chain) bears part of the blame. We are of course witnessing a visceral response on the part of HN voters reacting to my comment, who are exemplifying why this is a hard problem to tackle. It isn't MY responsibility!
- bri3d 12y ago
  As a consumer I have no way to know if the FTDI in my device is real. It really isn't my fault. This is FTDI's way of incentivizing companies using consumers, like I said in my original comment, and it sucks.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    As a consumer I had no way of knowing the motorcycle I bought was stolen. It came with the keys, the title, there was no evidence of thievery (most commonly broken parts around the ignition). The police said, "Wow we wouldn't have known this was stolen without running it in our database either". I didn't know. But it still gets repossessed, and I'm still out $1k. (True story, and my first brush with the laws around black markets)
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      These FTDI fakes aren't stolen, though. There is a massive difference between stolen, counterfeit, and clone. If the chips are only sold as "FTDI-compatible", then I would even say they should be completely legit, like Dalvik vs. Java.
    - vonmoltke 12y ago
      If the person from whom the motorcycle was stolen discovered one night that it was at your house and just took it back, they would be committing a crime. Even though the motorcycle was rightfully theirs, there is a procedure to go through to get it back. Simply showing up and taking it back is a form of vigilantism. What FTDI is doing is also a form of vigilantism.
      - judk 12y ago
        This is not true. Breaking into your house etc is criminal, but taking back their own property is not.
    - lsaferite 12y ago
      Except in this analogy, someone sold you a Ducati with Pirelli tires that happened to be counterfeit. And suddenly Pirelli shows up and torches your bike because someone used a tire that had their logo. Edit: Apparently I don't proof-read
    - Noted 12y ago
      Did you buy it directly from a dealership? It's really an apples and oranges situation here.
- wtallis 12y ago
  > Everyone, in demanding the lowest price no matter what (all the way up the supply chain) bears part of the blame. Your use of the word "blame" implies that you think there's some wrongdoing on the part of someone other than FTDI. As far as I can see, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the production and use of these clone chips except that they are being labeled with FTDI's trademark. They're piggybacking on FTDI's software work, but that's nothing that the government has an interest in stopping. If FTDI doesn't like people using their software without buying their hardware, they can resort to more traditional means like not giving out their software so freely or including DRM.
  - michaelt 12y ago
    Your use of the word "blame" implies that you think there's some wrongdoing on the part of someone other than FTDI. I don't see it as particularly controversial to say that, when someone selling an item claims it's a certain brand, I expect that to be the truth. For example, if I buy an apple iphone I expect to get an apple iphone and if the supplier instead sends me a fake I regard that as wrongdoing on the part of the supplier. Likewise, if a designer has specified an FTDI part and someone in the supply chain has substituted a fake, I'd regard that as wrongdoing.
    - wtallis 12y ago
      Right. That would be the trademark infringement I mentioned. But aside from that, the fakes get the job done. Aside from who ends up getting the revenue, it's basically no different than if FTDI started producing a new revision of the product that had a different internal layout. Accidental second-sourcing doesn't really hurt anyone other than the first source. Everyone downstream of whoever bought the counterfeits is innocent, and even the company that procured the counterfeits has probably only made forgivable mistakes given that the counterfeits are near-perfect substitutes. The supplier of the counterfeits is guilty of trademark infringement, but is otherwise fulfilling all their obligations to provide the required component.
      - michaelt 12y ago
- zem 12y ago
  and one can only hope that sony et al manage their supply chain by switching to a different chip entirely

by 13 12y ago

sliverstorm 12y ago

It shares the critical element of diffuse responsibility. Everyone can half-reasonably shrug their shoulders and say, "Well it isn't MY fault". If a Sony product happens to have a fake FTDI chip in it, this is FTDI's way of incentivizing Sony (via angry customers) to manage their supply chain, because as you say there's an incentive even for Sony to cut costs where they can- perhaps by turning a blind eye when they get some suspicious batches of chips for a great price, and claiming ignorance later... Everyone, in demanding the lowest price no matter what (all the way up the supply chain) bears part of the blame. We are of course witnessing a visceral response on the part of HN voters reacting to my comment, who are exemplifying why this is a hard problem to tackle. It isn't MY responsibility!

bri3d 12y ago
As a consumer I have no way to know if the FTDI in my device is real. It really isn't my fault. This is FTDI's way of incentivizing companies using consumers, like I said in my original comment, and it sucks.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  As a consumer I had no way of knowing the motorcycle I bought was stolen. It came with the keys, the title, there was no evidence of thievery (most commonly broken parts around the ignition). The police said, "Wow we wouldn't have known this was stolen without running it in our database either". I didn't know. But it still gets repossessed, and I'm still out $1k. (True story, and my first brush with the laws around black markets)
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    These FTDI fakes aren't stolen, though. There is a massive difference between stolen, counterfeit, and clone. If the chips are only sold as "FTDI-compatible", then I would even say they should be completely legit, like Dalvik vs. Java.
  - vonmoltke 12y ago
    If the person from whom the motorcycle was stolen discovered one night that it was at your house and just took it back, they would be committing a crime. Even though the motorcycle was rightfully theirs, there is a procedure to go through to get it back. Simply showing up and taking it back is a form of vigilantism. What FTDI is doing is also a form of vigilantism.
    - judk 12y ago
      This is not true. Breaking into your house etc is criminal, but taking back their own property is not.
  - lsaferite 12y ago
    Except in this analogy, someone sold you a Ducati with Pirelli tires that happened to be counterfeit. And suddenly Pirelli shows up and torches your bike because someone used a tire that had their logo. Edit: Apparently I don't proof-read
  - Noted 12y ago
    Did you buy it directly from a dealership? It's really an apples and oranges situation here.
wtallis 12y ago
> Everyone, in demanding the lowest price no matter what (all the way up the supply chain) bears part of the blame. Your use of the word "blame" implies that you think there's some wrongdoing on the part of someone other than FTDI. As far as I can see, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the production and use of these clone chips except that they are being labeled with FTDI's trademark. They're piggybacking on FTDI's software work, but that's nothing that the government has an interest in stopping. If FTDI doesn't like people using their software without buying their hardware, they can resort to more traditional means like not giving out their software so freely or including DRM.
- michaelt 12y ago
  Your use of the word "blame" implies that you think there's some wrongdoing on the part of someone other than FTDI. I don't see it as particularly controversial to say that, when someone selling an item claims it's a certain brand, I expect that to be the truth. For example, if I buy an apple iphone I expect to get an apple iphone and if the supplier instead sends me a fake I regard that as wrongdoing on the part of the supplier. Likewise, if a designer has specified an FTDI part and someone in the supply chain has substituted a fake, I'd regard that as wrongdoing.
  - wtallis 12y ago
    Right. That would be the trademark infringement I mentioned. But aside from that, the fakes get the job done. Aside from who ends up getting the revenue, it's basically no different than if FTDI started producing a new revision of the product that had a different internal layout. Accidental second-sourcing doesn't really hurt anyone other than the first source. Everyone downstream of whoever bought the counterfeits is innocent, and even the company that procured the counterfeits has probably only made forgivable mistakes given that the counterfeits are near-perfect substitutes. The supplier of the counterfeits is guilty of trademark infringement, but is otherwise fulfilling all their obligations to provide the required component.
    - michaelt 12y ago
zem 12y ago
and one can only hope that sony et al manage their supply chain by switching to a different chip entirely