Slashdot Mirror
FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips
New submitter weilawei writes: Last night, FTDI, a Scottish manufacturer of USB-to-serial ICs, posted a response to the ongoing debacle over its allegedly intentional bricking of competitors' chips. In their statement, FTDI CEO Fred Dart said, "The recently release driver release has now been removed from Windows Update so that on-the-fly updating cannot occur. The driver is in the process of being updated and will be released next week. This will still uphold our stance against devices that are not genuine, but do so in a non-invasive way that means that there is no risk of end user's hardware being directly affected." This may have resulted from a discussion with Microsoft engineers about the implications of distributing potentially malicious driver software.
If you design hardware, what's your stance on this? Will you continue to integrate FTDI chips into your products? What alternatives are available to replace their functionality?
If you design hardware, what's your stance on this? Will you continue to integrate FTDI chips into your products? What alternatives are available to replace their functionality?
At least this was a nice test to see if Microsoft cares about the quality of the WHQL driver pool.
Why would FTDI have to ensure their driver doesn't break chips that aren't theirs? There's no agreement, licensing, or goodwill.
The cloners took their chances with the FTDI PID:VID because they were too lazy to buy their own and make their own drivers, or license. Simply trying to make more money because they could con people into thinking their chips were genuine when they were not, *OR* simply getting out of making their own drivers and submitting to microsoft for windows update (all of which costs).
Basically, it's theft from the cloners. FTDI put a stop to it as trying to raise copyright infringement in china is laughable and next to impossible as no-one over there cares.
If I was a hardware manufacturer, this would make me MORE likely to use FTDI chips. It means I have greater confidence that what I'm getting is "real", because I know that they are actively trying to make counterfeiting their product more difficult.
When you send your fake Rolex (that you think is real) into Rolex for service, they don't send it back to you, they confiscate it as a counterfeit and it's destroyed. I went through this myself with a fake Mophie battery pack. They sent me back a photograph of the giant piles of counterfeit batteries that they confiscate because they came in for warranty work, and they weren't real.
This is functionally no different from that.
We don't use any of the serial only chips, but on the higher end with JTAG and SPI the FTDI parts work great and aren't too expensive. If any "clone" chips get into our supply chain we would be very pissed at whoever did it. We specify actual FDTI parts for a reason. The "clones" have very hit or miss quality. We don't use them under windows either.
Which is what they've likely now started to do in the next update, however :-)
However, the counterfeit chips *chose* to use FTDI drivers by using FTDI's licenced (and payed for PID/VID). That's not FTDI's problem. And FTDI have moved those chips off their USB id.
The chips and device still work, just not with FTDI's drivers. Nothing was 'broken'.
They didn't disable it though, they simply moved the PID off their allocated range.
The chip still works, just not with FTDI's drivers. Nothing was broken.
Any BOM that passes through my hands will get FTDI crossed off. I'm sorry they have a counterfeit problem. They need to improve anti counterfeiting measures instead of inflicting collateral damage. Their abrupt decision is smelly no matter how you look at it.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
FTDI tried to also get the "brick-patch" to Linux, but Greg Kroah-Hartman blocked it with this response:
Funny patch, you should have saved it for April 1, otherwise people might have actually taken this seriously :)
Patches as performance art, now I've seen everything...
greg k-h
They use FTDI's USB VID/PID - this is representing yourself as an FTDI chip.
Only to the computer, which doesn't really count. These IDs could reasonably be considered part of the interface to the hardware; exceptions have been granted for both copyright and trademarks in the past when the infringement was required for the sake of compatibility. The real question is whether the buyer was misled to believe that these chips were manufactured by FTDI. It seems that this was indeed the case, but that's a separate issue from the USB VID/PID.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Yesterday a number of my clients called me to say they wanted me to design out the FTDI FT232R from current designs and replace it with an alternative (I settled on the Microchip MCP2200). Today, after this news, I called each of them to explain FTDI's change in policy and see if they still wanted to make this change. All of them said yes.
The feedback was essentially this: FTDI's actions left a bad taste in their mouth and they didn't appreciate this action being taken without any real attempt to notify resellers and manufacturers; and now that they know the alternate chip I proposed was about half the price as FTDI's offering they are happy to change. Now none of these people are high volume manufacturers, so it will unclear if FTDI will even notice.
The reason I have found for most clients wanting FTDI is confidence in the brand more than anything else. This move will affect it a little, but people's memories are short, and FTDI responded quickly enough that they won't suffer too much damage. My prediction is that FTDI will take a dip in sales for a quarter , and then things will return to more or less normal; but companies like Microchip will likely see an uptick, because manufacturers more aware of the alternatives.
What do you know I wrote a novel