back to article Chipmaker FTDI bricking counterfeit kit

Reports are emerging that chip-maker FTDI has declared war on chip counterfeiters with a driver update that bricks USB devices recognised as fakes. Hackaday reports that the issue has been noticed in various forums – EEVBlog and Arduino among them – and pins the issue down to drivers setting the USB product ID to 0 if a USB …

Page:

  1. Munin
    FAIL

    That's going to cause some problems

    I've been watching some of these developments on twitter; several prominent hardware designers have sworn off FTDI for future use.

    Furthermore, this is likely to cause non-technical consumers some consternation: in the perception of the typical uneducated user, "Windows Update" will have broken their widget. As such, it's likely there's going to be a lot of future resistance to OS updates by those users and those persons those users talk with. The story of "my friend updated his windows and his things broke" is bound to make the rounds very fast.

    Needless to say, this is going to be problematic for the infosec community; it's hard enough to get users to install updates promptly as-is, but after this, it'll be all the harder.

    Additionally, besides the inevitable class-action suits that'll be brought against 'em, it's likely that FTDI is going to end up getting some nasty visits on the criminal side of the house for malicious destruction of property - if not worse; if they managed to brick any government kit with this stunt, then like as not they'll get charged with espionage or summat like.

    There's plenty of ways FTDI could have addressed this issue, and bricking hardware is probably the worst way.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: That's going to cause some problems

      >several prominent hardware designers have sworn off

      You mean dave from eevlog? If so "prominent" is maybe a bit of a stretch.

      1. Munin

        Re: That's going to cause some problems

        I specifically saw Travis Goodspeed state this; can probably find some others if you take a look.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: That's going to cause some problems

          >Travis Goodspeed

          Probably an academic hardware hacker and not a prominent hardware designer.. i.e. a guy that designs products that ship millions of units.

      2. Pypes

        Re: That's going to cause some problems

        @AC

        Surely the fact that you can say "Dave from eevlog" on a non-electronics forum and expect people to know who you're talking about is evidence enough of the blokes prominence.

        1. Gumby1

          Re: That's going to cause some problems

          Ello Dave I want to use your chips! Is that the bloke?

    2. petur
      FAIL

      Re: That's going to cause some problems

      Not only designers...

      I bet this will somehow fly back into their face in another way.

      Knowing the issue, and in need of a USB to Serial, will you take the risk of getting an FTDI based one (with the risk that it is a fake one), or go for another one that doesn't have this risk?

      I'm sorry but although I try hard not to buy fake versions, I'm going to play safe and avoid FTDI completely.

      Watch sales drop through the floor. This is image damage that will last a long time.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: That's going to cause some problems

        >Watch sales drop through the floor. This is image damage that will last a long time.

        Yes maybe a few hundred people that maybe buy one or two of their $3 parts over their whole life time boycotting them is going to totally kill them. That's a few trays of the many hundreds of trays of components they have to sell yearly to just stay afloat BTW.

        All of the guys that spend far too much time on Twitter are going to find it very hard to totally boycott FTDI's chips considering how many dev kits use the FT2232 for JTAG.

      2. JP19

        Re: That's going to cause some problems

        "Knowing the issue, and in need of a USB to Serial, will you take the risk of getting an FTDI based one (with the risk that it is a fake one), or go for another one that doesn't have this risk?"

        In a few months after this FTDI driver action has flushed low quality clone crap from the supply chain I will be more likely to buy an FTDI based one because it will be less likely to be low quality crap with a fake chip.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: That's going to cause some problems

      Sounds like a great way of alienating customers.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: That's going to cause some problems

      There's plenty of ways FTDI could have addressed this issue, and bricking hardware is probably the worst way.

      Maybe you are right, but chip counterfeiting has reached epidemic levels. If the board manufacturers that buy the chips don't care of they are getting cheap counterfeits or not (because they knowlingly buy from non-authorized suppliers) then it's up to the chip manufacturers to put a stop to it.

      Counterfeit chips may work for a time, but they can result in inevitable failure. Then the developer calls me, and complains that I have to fix it because it's not his fault that he bought his product from someone that uses fake chips. No, I don't work for FTDI, I work for another semiconductor company and counterfeits are costing us dearly, and not just in money. I even have people tell me "it's not my fault it's a counterfeit, you still have to replace them!" Then come the threats.

      So if your FTDI chip is a fake, call the manufacturer you bought the kit from and demand a refund or you will report them. Hell, I've had developers that got scammed buying boards with fake chips work with us to catch the crooks. We reward them with kit worth a lot more than their original board.

      several prominent hardware designers have sworn off FTDI for future use.

      Who? Don't B.S. me, tell me who they are. BTW, where do you buy YOUR boards from?

      1. Daniel B.
        Boffin

        Re: That's going to cause some problems

        Maybe you are right, but chip counterfeiting has reached epidemic levels. If the board manufacturers that buy the chips don't care of they are getting cheap counterfeits or not (because they knowlingly buy from non-authorized suppliers) then it's up to the chip manufacturers to put a stop to it.

        Understandable, but bricking counterfeit chips is a bad move in the long run. It would be far easier for FTDI to have the drivers flag a chip as counterfeit, then give this information to the end-user, which will then go to the manufacturer and say "hey, this is counterfeit stuff!" and so the complaint goes all the way up through the supply chain.

        Instead, this will only get anger directed at FTDI and/or Microsoft. Manufacturers will probably avoid FTDI altogether instead of risking their hardware getting bricked because one of their suppliers slipped a mickey on their chips.

    5. Jordan 1

      Re: That's going to cause some problems

      The keyword being "non-technical consumer." What practical difference is there between the only driver the user knows about bricking the device and the only driver the user knows about not working? A useless device is a useless device. A simple warning message accomplishes nothing.

  2. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Pretty nasty

    Having FTDI's drivers not work with counterfeits? No problem. Having it 0 the ID on the chip? I think this is over the line.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Pretty nasty

      >Having FTDI's drivers not work with counterfeits? No problem.

      >Having it 0 the ID on the chip? I think this is over the line.

      To most users that's going to amount to the same thing. They'll get an "you inserted a device" bong sound and then it won't work either way. There's nothing to say that the driver talking to knock offs normally wouldn't break them so maybe stopping them from registering with the driver in the first place is a good idea (tm).

      You can fix the id with FTDIs tool and continue to use the device with older drivers. It's hardly destroying the hardware.

      1. Nuno trancoso

        Re: Pretty nasty

        No, you're just tampering with it in a malicious way. Wanna bet how well that goes down? It's already bad when someone bricks hardware unintentionally, but doing it on purpose? Gonna go down real well...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Pretty nasty

          >No, you're just tampering with it in a malicious way.

          It's an EEPROM setting that is totally reversible.

          >Wanna bet how well that goes down?

          It doesn't corrupt any data or brick the hardware. It changes the ID from one that is being used illegally to one that no longer registers with a driver that it is forbidden to use on non-original devices.

          >It's already bad when someone bricks hardware unintentionally, but doing it on purpose?

          It doesn't brick the hardware. It changes an EEPROM setting so that fake chips no longer register with a driver they aren't licensed to use. I have seen at least one example of a pretty boutique product, a PCI bridge for the Amigas that use generic cards with modified ROMs, that wiped the RDB (partition table in Amiga land) when it found that the user was trying to use generic cards with the special drivers. That causes actual damage to peoples data. This on the other hand changes a totally reversible setting in the EEPROM. Nothing is bricked. It just won't register with the drivers anymore.

          1. corestore

            Re: Pretty nasty

            AC, what you say may have some technical validity.

            The end user will observe what happens, and say, "this Windows update bricked my hardware!".

            And they will be correct, for all practical purposes.

            1. Gotno iShit Wantno iShit

              Re: Pretty nasty

              This will be interesting to watch as various legal systems will be involved. China will of course do absolutely sod all about the counterfit makers. The American legal system would, if FTDI were American, defend it to the ends of the earth. But FTDI is British and if there's one thing the Merkin legal system likes to do it's screw a foreign company. If I were Fred Dart I'd be closing down the US listed company, the UK legal & political systems won't offer it any help. The UK doesn't have a class action mechanism so the legal system here is unlikely to do anything for the consumers. FTDI might find themselves under the spotlight if they have breached the computer misuse act, if so there will be years of court procrastination that end with a slap on the wrist.

              One thing is for sure, the only winners will be the vampires lawyers.

              1. bonkers

                Re: Pretty nasty

                I've just gone through this whole process with a "clone" device, from a reputable supplier.

                Firstly, I don't see how it is illegal to "white room" copy an existing part, like the very popular FTD232, if the chinese or whoever have replicated the function without copying the silicon, then, isn't that what AMD did to Intel, legitimately? This chip is the new "MAX232" - of course it will be replicated.

                Incidentally I hugely respect FTDI - have a look at their new "Eve" concept, turns a dumb graphics display into a sort of HTML terminal, so small micro's can drive big displays without tons of gfx and fonts type of codebase.

                Secondly, I'm not sure the new FTDI driver actually writes zero into the PID of the clone parts, I think they come with zero as the PID, but I could be wrong. My understanding is that the new drivers will recognise only parts with VID=0403 and PID = 6001, 6010, 6011. It will "fail to install properly" -because it has not been explicitly instructed to work with "0000" parts.

                I would post some of the code from the *.inf files, but the T's and C's are highly restrictive. In fact it is the agreement you sign up to when installing the drivers that carries most of the poison, you are not allowed to modify the software in any way, etc etc.

                I can understand they don't want their efforts in making and maintaining the drivers to benefit their competitors, but they're protecting a carcass, there's no more meat on the USB-UART thing, best move on, and btw everyone's coming round to this open-source thing these days.

                1. the spectacularly refined chap

                  Re: Pretty nasty

                  Firstly, I don't see how it is illegal to "white room" copy an existing part, like the very popular FTD232, if the chinese or whoever have replicated the function without copying the silicon, then, isn't that what AMD did to Intel, legitimately? This chip is the new "MAX232" - of course it will be replicated.

                  Reverse engineering is dicey but there's certainly no problem producing a compatible part which is what the MCU based part referenced above is. The difficulty is then claiming it to be an FTDI part. That is what you are doing if you program it with FTDI's VID.

                  I can understand they don't want their efforts in making and maintaining the drivers to benefit their competitors, but they're protecting a carcass, there's no more meat on the USB-UART thing, best move on, and btw everyone's coming round to this open-source thing these days.

                  This is nonsense and self-contradictory with the above - on the one hand you are claiming it is the new standard, on the other you are claiming it is obsolete and not worth defending. This is a large market - much larger than you probably appreciate. Discrete USB→RS232 adapters probably account for less than 10% of the total market, the rest is integrated.

                  Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending FTDI here, they seem to be on very shaky ground if it is in fact deliberate as everyone is assuming. However, it is worth remembering that there is no confirmation from FTDI anywhere I have seen and if this is an "inadvertent" side effect of operating their own chips they're on much more solid ground.

                  1. Alan Brown Silver badge

                    Re: Pretty nasty

                    " I'm not defending FTDI here, they seem to be on very shaky ground if it is in fact deliberate as everyone is assuming"

                    The linux driver code snippet posted elsewhere in this thread proves it's deliberate.

                  2. JeffyPoooh
                    Pint

                    Re: Pretty nasty

                    ...claiming it to be an FTDI part. That is what you are doing if you program it with FTDI's VID."

                    Are VIDs and PIDs and so forth legally protected? By statute, in the way that Trademarks are?

                    "FTDI" is obviously a legally protected trademark, but I doubt that something like "6201" in a certain register is actually legally protected.

                    1. Sandtitz Silver badge

                      Re: Pretty nasty@JeffyPoooh

                      "Are VIDs and PIDs and so forth legally protected? By statute, in the way that Trademarks are?"

                      Well, if the counterfeit device carries the USB logo without authorization from USB-IF, it most likely has some legal issues.

                      "but I doubt that something like "6201" in a certain register is actually legally protected."

                      True. Even Intel couldn't trademark '80486' so the successor was named 'Pentium'.

                    2. Jaybus

                      Re: Pretty nasty

                      "Are VIDs and PIDs and so forth legally protected? By statute, in the way that Trademarks are?"

                      Yes. The contract for the vendor ID requires a USB-IF trademark license agreement. The USB logos are trademarked. If a company does not have a VID, then they also do not have a license to use any USB logo. Any device with a fake chip that is using a USB logo is then in violation of trademark laws in any country in which USB-IF has a trademark. At this point, that is just about anywhere they are sold. Conclusion: if it has a fake chip and uses a trademarked USB logo, then it is contraband, Such a contraband device is not protected in any way, In fact it is subject to confiscation..

                2. Solmyr ibn Wali Barad

                  Re: Pretty nasty

                  "Secondly, I'm not sure the new FTDI driver actually writes zero into the PID of the clone parts, I think they come with zero as the PID, but I could be wrong."

                  Couldn't have been. Under Windows, neither new or old FTDI driver would tolerate zero PID. Hence the suggestion to use PID recovery tool AND older driver.

                  These links seem to hint the same:

                  channeleye.co.uk/microsoft-bricks-scottish-ftdi-clones/

                  hackaday.com/2014/10/22/watch-that-windows-update-ftdi-drivers-are-killing-fake-chips/

                  Latter link has usable workarounds for Linux. Apologies for copying.

                  Arduinouser says:

                  My arduino got hit by this I think. If you use linux, you can tell the serial driver to load even if the pid=0: echo 0403 0000 > //sys/bus/usb-serial/drivers/ftdi_sio/new_id

                  Jiří Němec (@BluPix) says:

                  Thanks, whole operation to restore pid using http://www.rtr.ca/ft232r/

                  echo 0403 0000 > /sys/bus/usb-serial/drivers/ftdi_sio/new_id

                  ft232r_prog –old-pid 0x0000 –new-pid 0x6001

          2. heyrick Silver badge

            Re: Pretty nasty

            "It's an EEPROM setting that is totally reversible."

            I rather suspect that the Windows users that can understand that sentence is likely to be a rather small subset, and the Windows users that can understand it and do something about it, smaller still.

            Therefore, while technically reversible, the original statement still holds true. The driver is intentionally bricking people's hardware.

        2. NumptyScrub

          Re: Pretty nasty

          No, you're just tampering with it in a malicious way. Wanna bet how well that goes down? It's already bad when someone bricks hardware unintentionally, but doing it on purpose? Gonna go down real well...

          Counterfeit cash or cards: subject to confiscation upon detection, further use is not permitted

          Cloned car: subject to confiscation upon detection, further use is not permitted

          Counterfeit USB to serial gizmo: ...

          I'm not saying bricking them won't really piss off everyone affected, because it will. But why treat a counterfeit USB to serial gizmo any differently to other counterfeit items like cash, or cloned motor vehicles? Once it is detected as counterfeit, your recourse as a consumer is to go after the seller; you don't sue the police for confiscating your cloned car, you sue the bloke at the pub who sold it to you.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Pretty nasty

            you don't sue the police for confiscating your cloned car, you sue the bloke at the pub who sold it to you.

            And the car doesn't get confiscated by the maker of the car that yours is a clone of either… it gets confiscated by law enforcement.

            That is where FTDI have overstepped the boundary.

          2. Daniel B.
            Boffin

            Re: Pretty nasty

            Counterfeit cash or cards: subject to confiscation upon detection, further use is not permitted

            Cloned car: subject to confiscation upon detection, further use is not permitted

            Counterfeit USB to serial gizmo: ...

            Counterfeit Rolex watch: You get to keep it.

            Counterfeit bags: You get to keep it.

            Pretty much counterfeit product confiscation is made at country customs, and even then end-users/consumers are pretty much given a pass on that. Why? Because there's a good chance you didn't even know they were counterfeit goods!

            The hideous ACTA was trying to criminalize this, but that got shot down thanks to the retarded SOPA/PIPA law in the US that made the world notice ACTA. Sure, they'll try to do TPP, but I'm pretty sure it'll also get shot down.

            In fact, there's a good chance that this bricking might have been actually legalized by ACTA. Yet another reason to kill that thing for good.

    2. Nuno trancoso

      Re: Pretty nasty

      Pretty much. And as someone said already, bricking peoples things will just make lawsuit chasers happy. There's absolutely no way to defend the course of action they took. IANAL, but i'm sure those that are are already doing the happy dance. Heck, ppl might start willfully bricking their stuff just to join in on the action.

  3. corestore

    The elephant in the room is...

    Microsoft.

    Did they know exactly what the payload - and I use that word deliberately - of the drivers was, when they distributed them as part of Windows update?

    Microsoft could be at least as much on the hook here as FTDI. If they knew, they were part of the conspiracy. If they didn't know, they distributed malware (and I can't think of any other description for something designed to brick a device) without doing due diligence.

    What have they said on the matter? Register - do journalism! Dig.

    1. Malcolm 1

      Re: The elephant in the room is...

      Do you really think that Microsoft keeps a stash of knock-off parts just on the off-chance that a driver causes it to fail in some way?

      Hardly some grand conspiracy methinks.

      1. corestore

        Re: The elephant in the room is...

        Irrelevant what they do or don't keep on the wall.

        The question is what they were TOLD.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The elephant in the room is...

        @malcom

        To be part of a Windows Update, the driver has to be certified by MS i.e. pass it's tests. I would hope that it would of shown up.

        1. KjetilS

          Re: The elephant in the room is...

          I would hope that it would of shown up.

          I'm terribly sorry to nitpick:

          It's would have.

      3. Tom 38

        Re: The elephant in the room is...

        Do you really think that Microsoft keeps a stash of knock-off parts just on the off-chance that a driver causes it to fail in some way?

        Not just. They keep stacks and stacks of hardware that they verify all windows updates (and subsequently user software) on for all sorts of reasons. Microsoft's dedication to keeping their software running on a wide variety of machines and OS is legendary, even to an OSS fanboy like me. Did you think "WHQL" was some badge they just stick on after looking at the code?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The elephant in the room is...(@Corestore)

      NOT MICROSOFT!

      FDTI wrote the drivers for THEIR usb to serial chips, not the counterfeit ones. Who ever made the counterfeit chips is STEALING from FDTI.

      Microsoft was provided the FDTI driver, all they did was "update the driver".

      1. Daniel B.
        Boffin

        Re: The elephant in the room is...(@Corestore)

        Who ever made the counterfeit chips is STEALING from FDTI.

        That word doesn't mean what you think it means. They are infringing upon patented stuff, or building a trademarked/copyrighted design and having it interface with software they haven't paid a license for, but they aren't stealing anything. There's a reason why copyright infringement, patent infringement, trademark infringement and theft are separate things in pretty much any country's law.

  4. Andrew Jones 2

    Sorry but the people in here who are claiming changing a setting in the EEPROM is totally justified and reversible don't really seem to get the point.

    Fake hardware or not - when a "normal" customer bought whatever kit it was from eBay or wherever - they more than likely did not know it was fake. They certainly don't have the knowledge of how to find a tool and go changing things in the EEPROM themselves. And as this article points out - even if you do change the setting back - it just flat out won't work with Windows - which is what the vast majority of people will be using. This is criminal damage - and is no different from writing a virus to kill another virus and then purposefully infecting peoples machines with it - which is also considered illegal.

    If you are using Linux - this doesn't affect you - you more than likely know how to get hold of the tool and change the EEPROM setting - and you more than likely knew or at least suspected that the hardware might be a bit on the dodgy side.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >And as this article points out - even if you do change the setting back -

      > it just flat out won't work with Windows -

      So they aren't allowed to restrict their drivers to only real devices either then? Blocking the devices in software and/or changing the ID so that they no longer register with the driver amounts to the same thing in the real world.

      Do they also have to test all of the fakes against their drivers to make sure they don't break them?

      >This is criminal damage - and is no different from writing a virus to kill another

      >virus and then purposefully infecting peoples machines with it -

      >which is also considered illegal.

      Stop being a drama queen. This changes a few bytes in an EEPROM. Those bytes can be totally recovered and the USB ID those bytes represent is FTDI's property in the first place.

      And .. drum roll .. Commercial devices (shipping in millions of units) that contain these chips have their own VID/PID and won't register with the stock drivers. This is why the Linux kernel contains a massive list of IDs for devices that use this chip and has a method to add new IDs at runtime. The main people this is going to affect is people that have bought cheap USB->Serial modules from eBay.

      1. DryBones

        Stop thinking like an uber-geek. You need to be thinking like an end-user about this. Nobody outside of this forum and frequenters of perhaps a handful of other tech sites would know about this unless it manages to go huge online. Yon End User plugs the device in, it stops working, they have no way to find out why unless they think to go digging way into device properties. When is the last time you looked at a USB ID just because?

        It is effectively bricked, for the average person's level of skill. Copy or not, this falls squarely into the Computer Misuse Act as malicious software.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          >You need to be thinking like an end-user about this.

          Exactly the same thing will happen if they block the device in the driver or brick the fakes by writing a register the doesn't exist in the fakes by mistake. What exactly should they do?

          I would argue that stopping the fakes from registering with their driver in the first place is fairly sensible.

          You all seem to be missing a few points, probably from not actually knowing what these chips are used in so let me help you out:

          These chips are USB to serial bridges. They are usually used in those USB to serial cables that you would find at Maplin etc but chances are you will not find a cable with an FTDI chip in on the high street as they are considerably more expensive than the chips from Silabs for example. They were used in some long since EOL'd Nokia data cable IIRC. If you manage to find a cable with an FT232 in it and it stops working you can return the cable to where ever you bought it and get them to work out why they are selling counterfeit goods.

          The other use of these chips is for simple usb interfaces to microcontroller based systems. The best example I can think of right now is my swanky 700 quid multimeter. It has an FT232 on one side of some optocouplers so that it can do data logging to a PC over USB without directly connecting to the microcontroller in the multimeter. This is to retain isolation between however many hundred volts are being measured on the multimeter inputs and the PC.

          Products like this use their own VID/PID and not the FTDI one so they will not register with the stock FTDI driver and require a special one from the vendor for Windows. If it's not really a generic serial port you don't want it being used as one. If the FT232 chip in the datalogging module does turn out to be a fake and gets bricked by the windows driver (not going to happen as I wrote Linux software to work with it but for the sake of argument..) the rest of the device won't stop functioning. I won't be able to use the data logging part anymore and I would return the meter to the vendor to have it fixed and they will have to deal with how counterfeit parts got into their supply chain.

          Other than cheap USB to serial modules, cheap Arduino clones etc used by makers etc I'd be surprised if you could find a product that contains one of these chips that has the stock VID/PID and that would be totally broken beyond use by the VID/PID getting changed.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Having a licence for drivers is properly lame anyway.

        3. Tom 38

          It is effectively bricked, for the average person's level of skill.

          If the "average user" used serial ports then you would still find them on the backs of computers. The average user has no use for a serial port, so if this bricks someone's USB-serial adapter, they aren't an average user.

          1. Pypes

            @tom 38

            The whole reason FTDI chips are so popular is that they prevent the average user from needing to know they are using a serial port. There is a hell of a lot of legacy industrial machinery currently being driven over magic cables that have a friendly USB plug on one end and a "weird trapezoid thing with a dozen pointy bits and some screws" on the other.

        4. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: DryBones

          ".....You need to be thinking like an end-user about this....." So, thinking like an end-luser, when the USB device stops working (which may not be noticed until an USB device is plugged in days after the update), the luser does one of three things.

          In the first case, they just assume their cheap, eBay-sourced USB device has blown up because it is a cheap, eBay-sourced device, and they go order another. Should that not work out-of-the-box (because it has a one of the fake chips) then they may come to the conclusion that buying cheap, eBay-sourced devices is not a good idea, and then purchase a more expensive part which has a warranty and hopefully an FDTI part included. At some point the supply of fakes will dry up as they will not be able to sell them as 'Windows ready' without falling foul of Trading Standards.

          Secondly, in the case they think they have a warranty they will reach out to the warranty-supplier's support, at which point it is up to the supplier to explain they have used a knock-off chip and need to supply a working replacement (ie, one with a proper FDTI part). Since the device is not 'broken' it could be rejected as a warranty replacement case, but that depends on whether they described it as 'Windows compatible' at the time of sale as it no longer is post-update. Supplying a replacement part that they know is not going to work after the update as 'Windows compatible', either as a warranty replacement or as a chargeable replacement, would be an illegal act in the UK, probably all EU countries, and most likely in the US too.

          In the third case, the luser takes his unit to someone who actually has the skills to diagnose the problem. In the case it is someone really skilled then they will get the explanation and probably the offer of a replacement device with an FDTI part. If they go to a less skilled repairer, such as a PC chain store, then they will probably get an offer of a replacement part with the diagnosis of "dis part be broke, we sell new one, only $59.99", but it highly likely someone in the chain store's organization will know about the issue and will have made sure their stock of replacements are genuine FDTI-containing parts.

          As it is FDTI has not irreversibly broken the 'fake' device, simply ensured they will not work with FDTI's Windows driver. FDTI is under no legal obligation to supply a driver that works with non-FDTI devices and could argue that, since it has no means of qualifying the design of 'fake' devices it cannot guarantee they will work safely and is therefore protecting the user. This is the Apple argument used to stop people using non-Apple PSUs and connectors.

          1. JeffyPoooh
            Pint

            Re: DryBones

            MB: "...come to the conclusion that buying cheap, eBay-sourced devices is not a good idea, and then purchase a more expensive part..."

            A reassuringly expensive replacement that will probably be just another clone with a high price applied to assist with moving them off the shelves.

            Your logic of paying more will be anticipated and taken advantage of.

    2. NumptyScrub

      Sorry but the people in here who are claiming changing a setting in the EEPROM is totally justified and reversible don't really seem to get the point.

      Fake hardware or not - when a "normal" customer bought whatever kit it was from eBay or wherever - they more than likely did not know it was fake.

      As I mentioned to another poster, I feel it is exactly as justifiable as the confiscation of cloned cars, or the confiscation of counterfeit banknotes. Normal consumers who unwittingly use counterfeit notes, or who purchase a cloned car, will (upon detection of the counterfeit) have those taken away from them never to be seen again. They get no reparation for the loss of those items, and have to pursue the seller (of the cloned car) or the person who handed them the funny money if they feel they deserve remuneration for being the victims of fraud.

      Why is it that you feel that consumers who unwittingly purchase a counterfeit USB to serial gizmo deserve different treatment in the eyes of the law?

      1. Tom 35

        So not justified at all

        "I feel it is exactly as justifiable as the confiscation of cloned cars, or the confiscation of counterfeit banknotes."

        There are specific laws in place to cover bank notes. It's not just because someone thought it was a good idea.

        Cloned cars? I read one story that claimed there were some fake Jeeps produced in China but I have never read anything about confiscation of cloned cars. Handbags yes, but that's due to trademark, and requires legal action. You can't just walk into china town with a hammer and wack anything you don't like.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon