I'm sure you realize that the counterfeiters operate in such a fashion and in regions of the world that make sueing them impossible. Which suck because it means FTDI really has no options to enforce their IP rights that don't hurt consumers.
That alone would cause enough inconvenience to manufacturers to make sure they use legitimate parts.
It's the (unethical) bricking of the parts that has everybody up in arms.
Probably just putting a message with priority "Error" in the windows event log would be enough to warn computer-literate users.
The problem in that case is not the actual new drivers, but the process of uninstalling the old working drivers.
The new Windows driver changes the PID to 0, and then the driver won't
recognize the device (even if you edit the INF file), and you can't use
the config tool. The workaround is to use a Windows XP or Linux system to
change the PID back, and then don't use the new driver.
This is really skirting the ethical line and I'm not sure I can agree with their methods. I'm fine with them writing a driver that fails to work with counterfeit chips, but not actively disabling the chip. What if the device is attached to more expensive equipment that will also fail? We can't ensure that these chips are knowingly purchased after all.
This motivation reminds me of when the U.S. and Syrian governments disseminated sabotaged munitions that explode in the weapon, killing/maiming the operator, among their opponents. The danger is that they will find their way back to friendlies.
It is NOT OK to modify the HARDWARE in ANY WAY, including changing the PID.
That is the issue.
Further Most people defending FTDI assume this code will be 100% pure and never incorrectly identify a real chip as fake, I find that claim to be suspect.
Lastly I would find it very hard to support vendors that take these aggressive risks and stances, I certainly would never incorporate a device from a manufacturer that uses these types of tactics into a mass produced product.
Unfortunately for me, I chose today to rotate.
I don't work for FTDI; I'm not even British. But I did build that Adafruit altoid tin MP3 player eight years ago, which used a FT232.
Why am I wasting my time on this argument? I don't really know, aside from I hate the "internet dogpile" effect.
My credibility as a greenbean is nil of course, but oh well.
Edit: obviously folks do not believe me. Serves me right for trying to answer. jessaustin, I hope you at least feel like you got your answer. I get the feeling it doesn't actually matter what I say or even who I really work for- I'm branded.
Let's take this from another point of view:
You purchase a device or some piece of hardware for a project which becomes useful to others and you decide to make the project marketable and release your own line. You source your components and one of them happens to have an FTDI chip that you believe legitimately came from the company. Your project is accepted by others and everyone is happy.
Then one day, your supplier decides to switch out a source for the chip in one of the components of your project to one that's cheaper (the supplier may not suspect these are counterfeit). You don't see any difference either as you haven't tested it with the latest driver, which may not be out yet. The project is now shipped.
A new driver is released. An overwhelming number of customers now hit your support system saying the update has stopped your project cold. Rolling back the update has no effect. You don't know which component caused the problem as your project uses several from different suppliers. It may take days or even weeks to track down the problem, but meanwhile, your customers grow angry.
This is now your fault and you're left holding the bag.
This scenario need not be hypothetical, as this is just the same as GM "fixing" a problem with their ignition switch that has already claimed lives, but leaving the part number the same. This makes recalling a nightmare as there's now no way to tell which cars are affected until the switch fails or someone dies again.
Just the same as there's no way to tell which one of your project's components carry counterfeit chips and you need to issue a recall for potentially 100K units since you don't know which ones carry a counterfeit and there's no software fix anymore as the chip is bricked. Your project is also potentially being used in mission critical infrastructure that cannot be shut down to do a test without costing a lot of money. Better hope no one follows "best practices" and updates the driver as it may also contain a security fix.
FTDI is well within their rights to protect their product. But are they doing the ethical thing by costing unsuspecting customers and potentially hundreds of other businesses that rely on their product valuable time and money? All for not knowing that somewhere along the supply chain, someone cut a few corners and got their chips from a counterfeiter? Should they be victims twice; once by the counterfeiter and again by the company?
Yes, I take this answer at face value. I didn't really think there were only two possibilities here. Perhaps I was a bit blunt in the hopes of eliciting a "real" answer like this one.
They are not entitled to break the hardware by changing the PID so it doesn't work with any drivers.
There are other drivers that work when the PID is left intact.
The device violates the USB specification by using a protected VID; it is already to be considered as broken regarding the USB specification.
A more appropriate analogy would be a car that has its chassis number filed off and written back on with black marker.
What's you point here?