3 ms·
Does this qualify as a CFAA violation? I think so and for monetary gain, no less. I would like to hear why wouldn't the DA that leaned so hard on Swartz wouldn'
by beagle3 12y ago
Does this qualify as a CFAA violation? I think so and for monetary gain, no less. I would like to hear why wouldn't the DA that leaned so hard on Swartz wouldn't do the same FTDI's CEO.
- jrockway 12y agoTechnically the counterfeit devices should have never been allowed into the country. So it should be interesting how this plays out.
- beagle3 12y agoAre they actually counterfeit? Legally, I'd be surprised. They are re-implementing the FTDI protocol, which is completely legal. They are reusing FTDI's PID/VID, which might or might not be a violation of the USB specs or USB recommendations -- I'm not sure about that -- but I'd be really surprised if that matches the legal definition of "counterfeit" for which customs has the right (and duty) to stop imports.
- jrockway 12y agoI'm guessing they intended to go after devices sold as FT232s with the FTDI logo on them. If there's collateral damage, that could be a problem. Then again, the users _did_ agree to let that happen in the clickwrap agreement, so it's still uncertain. Either way, I'm readying the popcorn. This should be interesting.