Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryandrake | Hacker News Reader

It shouldn't matter what their intent was. If the new version of a network driver accidentally started DDOSing servers, it should also be pulled, regardless of whether the vendor did it on purpose.

View on HN

If the counterfeit FTDI chips are using FTDI's registered USB vendor ID (I assume they are, otherwise the driver wouldn't recognize them?) I think the blame falls solely on the counterfeit chip makers.

Why? The counterfeits aren't seeking USB compliance certification, they're just trying to provide 100% compatibility. Are you saying that reverse engineering and spoofing for the sake of compatibility is wrong? Or do you think that USB vendor IDs are covered by some trademark?

Seems like there's a few people who don't seem to understand the difference between copyright, trademark, criminal and civil law (op above you included).

The only law broken by the counterfeiters is trademark violation for printing the FTDI logo on their chips. That's it! Everything else they did was legal. Otherwise, Intel and AMD would be bricking CPUs right now.

Reverse engineering is legal. Emulation is legal. Creating hardware that's compatible with another vendor's software is legal. Flashing your hardware with another vendors firmware is legal. Modifying hardware you purchased from a vendor is legal. Modifying software you purchased from a vendor is legal.

etc... etc...

Going with your example, if AMD uses "Core" or "Xeon" in the name of their chip, it is most likely infringing the trademark of Intel. But in this case, it's more like AMD is simply branding their chip with exact Intel product name and sold as if it's from Intel. I don't think this is a trademark issue any more, it's more like fraud.

Does anyone even know what entity designed and made the fake FTDI chip?

I find many people don't seem to understand what making compatible chip means. It's very common to have legitimate, drop in replacement for popular ICs. But this fake FTDI chip is certainly not the case here.

No, it's trademark and trademark only. Generic medicine puts on the label of their products "compare to brand name XXX." There's nothing wrong with this. As long as you don't impersonate another companies mark. Is it a flagrant violation? Sure. Doesn't change that this is still (only) a civil matter.

Wouldn't flashing your hardware with another vendor's firmware, thereby distributing said firmware, be copyright infringement?

Only the distribution, and even then only if the firmware is eligible for copyright protection. Purely functional configuration data like vendor and product IDs aren't copyrightable.

Well... The Fake's logos are significantly fatter than the FTDI logo. It spells FTDI, but it's not the FTDI logo....

:-)

(I'm speaking more from a moral standpoint than a legal standpoint. IANAL)

It doesn't matter if it's trademarkable. The entire purpose of VIDs is to distinguish between different vendors' devices. If I'm allocated a VID it's not my responsibility to ensure my drivers interoperate with other vendors' products.

How many products using counterfeit FTDI chips don't advertise USB compliance?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com