Prolific-gate -or- Why should FTDI be the only assholes - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Medo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 06:00:22 pm
content: Well, after trying to use previously working Prolific PL2303 cable, I was faced with the "THIS IS NOT PROLIFIC PL2303. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SUPPLIER" Prolific driver (dutifully signed by Microsoft and distributed by Windows update).I guess manufacturer thinks that breaking functionality for the end customer is the way how to get fakes of the market. Personally, I now know that I will avoid ALL Prolific devices (and chips) like a plague since there is no way for me to check beforehand the authenticity and any of them is a risk.A bit more details (and bickering) can be found on my blog (https://www.medo64.com/2022/05/really-prolific/).

author: uer166
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 06:11:34 pm
content: Sucks, but hopefully they didn't go full FTDI andactually brick the device itself.

author: Medo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 06:15:02 pm
content: Quote from: uer166 on May 29, 2022, 06:11:34 pmNot yet.The old driver still works.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 06:19:45 pm
content: It sucks that there are no simple devices that just use standard CDC ACM drivers with no need for any manufacturer drivers. CH330 would be ideal, but it still needs a driver for no real reason.

author: Medo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 06:26:11 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on May 29, 2022, 06:19:45 pmWhat about MCP2221A?It is simple (assuming you don't need I2C) and it does just a standard CDC.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 06:42:15 pm
content: Quote from: Medo on May 29, 2022, 06:26:11 pmYes, sure that is one good example. But it is quite expensive and the packages are big due to extra functions.SIOC-8 package like that CH330 would be so ideal. And with CDC drivers you only have one time expense of designing the part and no need to bother maintaining any drivers. Sounds like a win to me.For my needs I use SAM D11 with a custom firmware. It sucks to have to program the part, but it also gives me a lot of flexibility, so I guess it all works out. I have not used a fixed function IC for this in a long time.

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 06:48:10 pm
content: Seem to remember Prolific have been a PITA for quite some time with drivers though this seems new.Also, there are any number of USB capable micros out there which have CDC compatible serial example applications, why not just use one of those?

author: uer166
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 06:54:12 pm
content: Quote from: CJay on May 29, 2022, 06:48:10 pmBecause managing yet another micro development environment, factory programming, and code maintenance is rarely worth it if you have a drop-in chip that woks after it's soldered. If someone comes up with an MSOP-8 or a SOIC-8 as was said USB to UART converter that does CDC and needs no programming, it would sell well assuming costs are low.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 06:56:31 pm
content: Quote from: uer166 on May 29, 2022, 06:54:12 pmYep, that's the whole point of those chips. And this is exactly what makes them popular. Which in turn is what makes some companies clone them.

author: Uunoctium
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 07:13:03 pm
content: Just my 2ctMaybe the very old driver 3.3.2.105 is the solution. Runs under W10 and has solved the problem.It is not enough to install it once! Every M$ update immediately changes it to their generic driver, so the problem persists. And after a few months they deleted it from the dropdown list. So please backup and store it.(green link, middle of text)http://wp.brodzinski.net/2014/10/01/fake-pl2303-how-to-install/

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 07:24:57 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on May 29, 2022, 06:19:45 pmThe problem with doing that is that such a device would identify itself as a modem on some OSses (IIRC Mac OS). In the end the creators of the CDC standard didn't think of defining a basic serial port.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 08:36:05 pm
content: And this is pretty logical. You can understand what CDC is here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_communications_device_class

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 09:09:24 pm
content: We understand what CDC is. This does not negate the fact that there is no real standard way to implement a basic serial port. CDC ACM is as close as you can get. And I think it works fine in MAC too, even though it might appear in a strange place.USB authors did not figure out to add a generic plain data transfer class. So we ended up with abused HID class to implement this. The whole thing is pretty hopeless.

author: Doctorandus_P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 09:40:17 pm
content: Some time (a few years actually) ago I was looking for some STM32 examples and I foundhttps://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/satoshinm/pill_serial(Except that I found it on github).I flashed it in a Blue Pill and it added 3 serial ports on my linux box.I did a few simple tests by starting a few terminal emulators and looping the data back and forth with a few "dupont" wires on a breadboard and it all seemed to work. I have not done any stress test on the project though. Only some simple tests.It "just worked" for me, but of course the FTDI and probably the Prolific clones also "just work" on almost any linux box. I can't remember ever having installed a driver for such chips. Despite that I still refuse to buy FTDI chips.

author: PCB.Wiz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 09:54:00 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on May 29, 2022, 06:19:45 pmThere ishttps://prolificusa.com/product/pl2303gd-usb-cdc-serial-bridge-controller/but that's from Prolific, so may have issues with the OP.I have tested the pL2303GC series parts, on a modules from DSD-TECH, and they are 'adequate'.Work ok on RX up to about 2.67MBd and above that, need handshake support or they drop characters in long packets.They do have fractional baud, and give a virtual baud clock of 96MHz so 96MHz/N is supported for N >= 8They have a strange artifact of a ~ 500ns too long STOP bit, which does not affect classic UART operation, but does make the common uart measuring check of using a frequency counter harder to apply.At the top 12Mbd, that fixed time becomes ~7 stop bits.It also means if you test using a PL2303GC and then use another part without that added-time in the field, you are in untested territory.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 09:59:22 pm
content: Quote from: PCB.Wiz on May 29, 2022, 09:54:00 pmHow does this meet any of the criteria? The idea of the standard CDC ACM device is that you don't need a driver for any OS made in the last 10 years. This comes with a ton of downloads and instructions on how to disable a check for third-party drivers on MAC OS.This is garbage for people that are ok with their devices being bricked by idiot mangers.If your VCP IC comes with a driver download - it is bound to break at some point, it is just easier to avoid.

author: mon2
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 10:22:34 pm
content: Not to take this thread OT but WCH announced a new part yesterday:https://twitter.com/sad_electronics/status/1530653327213703172?t=VFKJjK1Q68VdY3N0twGN5A&s=19http://www.wch.cn/products/CH9101.html

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 10:42:49 pm
content: Yep, also have an (as far as I know) authentic PL2303, Windows tries to update it every couple of years and I have to do the song and dance replugging it, checking that it's not a wiring issue, finding out it's the stupid driver being stupid again, and resetting it with the version from 2008.Tim

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 10:50:07 pm
content: Quote from: mon2 on May 29, 2022, 10:22:34 pmYep. And it looks like unlike CH330, it is actually just a CDC ACM device. The datasheet explicitly mention that it works with the OS drivers.

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 11:25:46 pm
content: Historically, I'm madder that Prolific discontinued driver support for older GENUINE Prolific chips, because clones became too common.QuoteThere is apparently some chance that the "standard CDC/ACM drivers" on the host side are "not very good." :-(

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 11:31:06 pm
content: Quote from: westfw on May 29, 2022, 11:25:46 pmMy be in the past, but I have not ran into any issues as fas as I remember. And given that all MCU-based devices implement ACM, those drivers get used and tested quite a bit.

author: PCB.Wiz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 11:38:58 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on May 29, 2022, 06:19:45 pmThe CH330 is no longer in WCH tablehttp://www.wch.cn/products/categories/22.html?pid=1Some of those mention CDC, but do not explain how to enable that. If I plug in my CH9102 part, it says custom driver.I see WCH have added a CH347, that sounds like a nice HS-USB part.http://www.wch.cn/products/CH347.html?1200bps ~ 9Mbps.Each serial port has a built-in 12K-byte receive FIFO and a 4K-byte transmit FIFO.Support common MODEM contact signals RTS, DTR, DCD, RI, DSR, CTS.Support CTS and RTS hardware automatic flow control.It supports half-duplex and provides the serial port sending status indication TNOW, which can be used to control RS485 transceiver switching.Finally, aHS-USB bridge in a small package, but I cannot find stocks/prices/modules yet ?The TSSOP20 pinout shows TWO UARTS capability, and they mention i2c / SPI and JTAG making it a flexible little part.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 11:45:39 pm
content: Quote from: PCB.Wiz on May 29, 2022, 11:38:58 pmI guess it got replaced by CH340, which is also available in 8-pin package. But still requires proprietary drivers.Quote from: PCB.Wiz on May 29, 2022, 11:38:58 pmAny chance of getting it plugged into Linux and dumping lsusb output?

author: PCB.Wiz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2022, 11:57:24 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on May 29, 2022, 09:59:22 pmIt seems the data sheet gives more infoUSB CDC driver and SDK: - Using built-in CDC driver on Win10(* 1 ), Mac OS X 10.7, Linux 3.8, Android 3.2 and their later version.*1 . Default using Prolific virtual-com-port driver on Win7&8.and thisHardware Flow Control (CTS/RTS and/or DSR/DTR) (*3 *4)Software Flow Control (XON/XOFF) (* 3 *4)*4 .Microsoft CDC driver can’t support H/W and S/W flow control. Users need to use Prolific virtual-com-port driverThe last qualifier is interesting, I've not used pure CDC but if it cannot manage HW handshake, that limits the applications, and explains why customer drivers still exist - even after all this time.I've seen people mention that Win10 CDC is 'better' but maybe it still comes up short ?

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2022, 12:09:19 am
content: I briefly tested HW flow control when debugging my implementation, and it seemed to work at least long enough for a quick test. Not sure if there are some deeper issues there, but there is support for it.And I don't know about SW flow control. I did not even think to test that at all. I have never seen anything use that.Also, Win7 is trash for drivers, so there may be issues there.

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2022, 12:14:07 am
content: QuoteThroughput-wise, rather than bugs.I've been seeing "less than expected" data rates for continuous output to Arduino CDC/ACM (ie SAMD, RP2040) (could be the uC code, of course, but ... consistent across tinyUSB vs PluggableUSB, and there's an (old) comment onAxelson's USB FAQabout the windows driver being limited to 640kbps. (note that 640kbps is quite fast compared to traditional serial ports, so one might never notice. But speeds in the other direction are noticeably faster.))(Difficult to analyze without a USB HW debugger. I may try your Pico Hack for that...)

author: uer166
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2022, 12:40:10 am
content: While everyone is at it: I never had good luck with implementing ~1Mbaud UART using various converters, there are always some dropped characters and occasional corruption, which makes some high-speed variable tracing a bigger pain than it needs to be. Can someone suggest a chip that reliably works at that speed without dropping characters?Of course custom protocols are possible, but I just want to use SerialPlot or VisIt and have it "just work", life's too short.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2022, 12:52:40 am
content: I have never had any problem with that speed using FTDI chips. But whatever you use, make sure the other side of the communication channel is not to blame.My favorite one at the moment for quick and easy UART interfacing to USB is the FT230X. It's still cheap, but much better than the original FT232R, and since it's significantly more recent and with more features, it has not be cloned AFAIK, so you can be almost certain you'll get genuine parts.Availability, as with almost any other IC these days, uh, is... difficult.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2022, 01:11:18 am
content: Hm, for my part, I haven't had much, reason to try really, much beyond 230kbaud. I use FT232 adapters for AVR-DA programming and debug; programming fails above 250k or so, so I just run at that. And less is fine with either (FT or PL). I almost never use flow control either...Tim

author: PCB.Wiz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2022, 02:35:38 am
content: Quote from: uer166 on May 30, 2022, 12:40:10 amMaybe it is the PC side SW that gives issues ?I've not seen many USB-UARTs that cannot cope at 1MBd half duplex.Most can go somewhere above 2MBd before any issues appear, and usually hardware handshake enabled allows the full peak baud spec (of course throttled in bursts by the handshake).If you really want fast and simple, pick one of the HS-USB parts from FTDI like FT232H or FT2232H - those can stream 12Mbd without needing handshake, because they have large buffers and a 480Mbps USB backbone.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2022, 05:13:44 am
content: Quote from: uer166 on May 30, 2022, 12:40:10 amIf you see this happen with non-stop communication with long data stretches without any idle time, try going from one stop bit to two.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2022, 05:20:18 am
content: The 12Mbit USB Full speed can be problematic at times for high throughput due to how the drivers work.The packet size is really small for USB FS while the drivers on the controller side don't have much buffering so they need constant babysitting from the OS. If the OS is too busy with other things or you have a lot of other stuff along the way (like USB hubs) then it can take a significant amount of time to service the requests and the throughput falls. So in the real world you can only really get about half of those 12Mbit as usable, the speed might have lots of micro fluctuations depending on the OS load.The similar problem exists with USB HS 480Mbit but the max packet size is much larger so it does manage to get a lot more usable throughput. Yet is still susceptible to the OS servicing it in a timely fashion, so you might get noticeable throughput differences depending on your hardware and OS.I think this was finally sorted out with USB 3.0But yes UART also likes a short break every so often to help synchronize the two devices on a fresh start bit.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2022, 05:24:16 am
content: Character mode devices at such high speeds (namely, more than some kB/s, even), on a multitasking OS, is something of a miracle -- that they work at all, or as well (and as fast) as they do. If you need megabits, you're definitely barking up the wrong tree; working with USB directly is going to be the better plan.Tim

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2022, 06:03:12 am
content: QuoteRight. I need the USB analyzer to see if the host is sending data too fast, causing the device to NAK data (in which case some sort of back-off is at least "correct", and maybe the problem is fixable with better device-side code), or if the host is just beinglazyconservative about how much data it is willing to send during each transmit window.640kbps (from Axelson's FAQ) is just 80 bytes/ms, less than the two 64-byte buffers that devices typically queue up for a ping-pong buffering scheme.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2022, 06:37:41 am
content: Just for fun, I removed anything UART-related in my VCP implementation and simply re-armed the endpoint once the data is received from the PC. It dumps as much data as possible while button is pressed on transfers to the PC. The implementation is dead simple, not even using interrupts, just polling mode, no double buffering. Running on 48 MHz Cortex-M0+ (SAM D11).For the PC to the device minicom reported "72187.6 Kbytes transferred at 665947 CPS"For the device to the PC I've got "52678.2 Kbytes transferred at 817311 CPS"Again this is absolutely trivial implementation of the USB stack. I have no doubt that double buffering will get it very close to the theoretical maximum. So any further slowness would come from UART handling. Or windows drivers really suck. This test was done on Linux. It is a long holiday and I don't want to touch windows.

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2022, 05:24:17 pm
content: Quote from: uer166 on May 29, 2022, 06:54:12 pmI'm of the opinion that designing in chips which can be dumped by manufacturers or, worse, cloned and then bricked is also a bit of a hassle but I guess we have different perspectives.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2022, 05:08:13 am
content: Yep it is always annoying to bring in a new MCU architecture.You have to learn all of that MCUs ecosystem (documentation, tools, compiler, drivers..etc) and often also buy some sort of programmer interface to actually load code into a chip. It is a lot of work for just some chip, then in production you have one extra thing to take care of to load the firmware into it.Sticking MCUs in there also provides the potential for feature creep since you realize that you could add some feature in software on that MCU.I like chips that do 1 thing and do it really well. I plonk the chip down in my schematic and move on, knowing it will work.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2022, 05:25:36 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on May 30, 2022, 06:37:41 amno, they don't! who told you that? because they're wrooooooooooongah, give me the bastardized HID any day, having to deal with serial ports is so annoying, so so so so annoying. one of the latest windows 10 updates broke something because one of my software didn't work anymore, suddently i had to explicitely add sleep in a bunch of places or it wouldn't communicate properly with a device (with stable firmware) anymore

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 31, 2022, 10:13:53 am
content: Serial ports do suck. At least HID gives you some structure and the ability to find your device easily without searching through comports.On Windows, I thinkWinUSB WCIDis the way forward, providing easy install (winusb.sys/.dll assigned automatically) with any device class available.Combine with libusb and say goodbye to comports.

author: darkspr1te
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2022, 01:08:49 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on May 29, 2022, 11:45:39 pmI have run into this issue so many times that it's almost a joke, Between my clients ancient sewing machines, CNC's, laser engravers, printing presses, scales, till printers, station notification banner boards and so on all need a serial port (RS232/485 flavors normally) that i have probably used every solution that is set and forget and broke it somehow.Ordering online here (zambia) is a relatively new thing (last 4 years or so) but prior to that you were at the mercy of the local PC store and they were slim pickings at best but we had one saving grace here, due to the culture of the shop owners they never let go of stock, its sold or it's stolen but never swapped out in anyway for a more recent device until the old stock space is empty. This has ment i can still find NOS original usb - serial adapters from the black prolific, to the green ch330/340 and then best one is the APC UPS adapter which is FDTI original to MAX232+485 so all you need is a tail adapter to set the pinout to your requirements(still available from some retailers to support the large custom units).Ti also do a usb-serial chip but i would avoid it like a plague , it needs a driver and blob and once the driver/blob is installed then all other devices using that chip use that binary blob and if one manufacture has a custom blob and thats installed first then all other devices will try and behave like that one, a prime local example here was our national telecoms provided business's with radio phones that had serial port for internet dial up with a special rs232 cable that contained that chip, it turned out this was also the solution for the local Scale seller, fuel pump access system, weigh bridge, time and attendance and many more machines were broken as that blob from the telcomms provider was custom and every other device was plain old serial blob as provided by Ti. What was ment to be a simple "heres youre phone and cable, just plug in and installl cd software" was a roll out nightmare requiring many tellcom technicians to site visit and delete existing driver to install theirs not understanding that then broke other systems, call in your machine technician & they do the same trick but for their hardware and rinse and repeat. I was tasked by my current job to solve this and I settled on a simple bat file and reg patch that i could email to savvy clients or remote for others, the bat file ran a program installed with the drivers that allowed you to change the devices PID+VID (security much) and then the reg patch would change the blob file used for the telcomm device while leaving others untouched it also ment that i could keep a few telcomm cables handy and ship to clients with a flashdisk with patched pid+vid driver as the act of using the already newly changed cable would trigger a new driver request. And dont get me started on their "simpler USB 3g stick for the masses" solution which came with a virus/malware on the built in cd installer which they gifted a lot of customers(in the 100's) as a sorry for the previous F**k upHowever my preference is when you can get one is get a PCI-serial or PCIe-to multi serial card but look for ones with bios integration then windows and every other os just see's them as plain old serial ports, this is most needed in the cnc/sewing machine systems due to electrical noise, USB will have issues there with long USB cables i've found.my overkill to USB stateness is adding a Stm32 bluepill in usb cdc-acm or a esp32 via a buffer to the device itself, with latter doing serial over IP.I do remember my peers telling me that USB ment i would not have to deal with serial and yet I still have my entire "serial toolkit" of adapters, flashy testers, node terminals and so on and a bag full of bluepills to deal with serial retrofits, funny that.darkspr1te

author: benSTmax
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2022, 01:12:52 pm
content: The company I am working for uses the MCP2200 and recently the MCP2221A mainly because they're providing CDC ACM interface.In all the products, the maximum baudrate at which we've used them is 115200.I am keeping a few MCP2200 and MCP2221A boards in my drawer. I've used the 2200 with a baudrate of 1Mbps (using short connections) with no issues whatsoever.Another plus on the side of CDC ACM is these 2200 and 2221A boards worked with no issues on OSX or on the embedded Linux boards I am usually playing with (RPi, Beaglebone, Orange Pi)No reason to move back to FTDI, Prolific, WCH or other custom class USB-UARTs chips.

author: josip
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2022, 03:06:38 pm
content: Quote from: westfw on May 30, 2022, 12:14:07 amI never noticed 640kbps limitation with windows drivers. Down to XP, benchmarked 1Mbyte/s with CDC in both directions without issues. With slow msp430 @ 24MHz compared to today devices.Quote from: voltsandjolts on May 31, 2022, 10:13:53 amIf I rember right, I already noted on some other topic that on any OS, CDC device can be found by VID / PID without problems.Also, I don't understand why anybody today need flow control. Using 1MHz MCU or what? Attached MSP430 @ 24 MHz in action, receiving from 2 UART's @ 4Mbps in parallel (as dual UART / CDC bridge) and sending data to PC, without flow control. And yes, on Win XP.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 31, 2022, 04:41:02 pm
content: Quote from: josip on May 31, 2022, 03:06:38 pmHello, yes, I remember our conversation.Depends on your definition of 'without problems', there are still some cross-platformshinanigans.Using libusb (which is cross-platform) is just simpler IMHO.QuoteI said structure meaning 'data structure' rather than flow control.Serial needsCOBSorSLIPor special characters to implement structure / packets.With true USB device you can just use the buffer size as a structure / packet.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2022, 05:57:00 pm
content: Quote from: josip on May 31, 2022, 03:06:38 pmJust because a MCU can receive data at such a fast rate always mean it can do something useful with it.Perhaps during what you sent the application had to write to a SD card... but wait the card didn't have a pre erased block ready to write into, so it has to prepare one, oh right this block is due for a wear leveling swap, alright swap it out with this one... wait why is the ECC wrong in page 456? Okay this is a bad one, move data elsewhere. Alright sorted.. pew. Okay MCU can you give me the next sector data now? All that time the MCU was nevusly watching the buffer fill up, eating up the few KB of RAM it had for it and started throwing away anything you needed it to do after that. If only the MCU had a way to tell the other device to hold on for a bit.Not all processes can be guaranteed to finish within a millisecond and there is only so much RAM you have available to absorb a queue of data.That being said i rarely ever use hardware flow control myself. I usually design a a protocol that involves acknowledgements to be sent back, or is robust enough to not break if a message gets lost here or there.

author: PCB.Wiz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2022, 08:20:22 pm
content: Quote from: josip on May 31, 2022, 03:06:38 pmAt modest speeds you can get away without flow control, but for higher speeds and best long term reliability, HW handshake can help.As mentioned above, OS changes can suddenly affect what was a 'working system' by shifting the resource balance.See my sustained tests with FT232H -> PL2303G above, where 2.66Mbd is max for reliable no-flow, but it can be set to 12Mbd ok with flow enabled, and the average rate then is what the HW manages (4.836 MBd averaged).Of course it is a royal pain toneedflow control, and that's why I like the look of that new CH347 - if it works like FT232H, it can keep up with faster MCUs without HW handshake and at a much smaller package / (lower price?)

author: MikeK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2022, 06:41:34 pm
content: FWIW...FTDI are not assholes for what they did. They built a great product. So much so that others copied it. They just tried to protect it and didn't foresee the results. Just because the outcome was what it was doesn't mean they were wrong. They definitely weren't assholes...That's really not fair.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2022, 07:15:54 pm
content: Quote from: MikeK on June 01, 2022, 06:41:34 pmThat discussion has already been done here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/ftdi-gate-2-0/If I were in charge at FTDI, I would have done the same.

author: jeremy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2022, 08:32:47 pm
content: New part from WCH, seems they are listening to criticism well.http://www.wch-ic.com/products/CH343.htmlFeatures:- no drivers, CDC interface (although I think they provide a custom driver for some non-standard extensions)- all of the extra signalling pins, incl RS485- unique embedded serial exposed via USB descriptor- supports a UART supply voltage of 5V to 1.8V- actually available for purchase (ie in stock) at LCSC- SOIC, MSOP and QFNI have some of these chips from LCSC and they work great.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2022, 11:17:27 pm
content: Quote from: jeremy on June 01, 2022, 08:32:47 pmThat is very interesting but I wish it had pins that pulse when there is rx/tx activity.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 12:10:50 am
content: i sometimes wonder why people want to do these breakneck speeds over a uart. The first uarts were made for 75/1200 communication using 4 wire handshaking ! And you are trying to run 3 or more megabits banking on the TX/RX pair without the 4 extra wires ?you'd better have deep buffers. In the uart and in the firmware/software.... and hve a software level acknowledge/retry mechanism...it was never designed for this.

author: uer166
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 12:23:09 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 02, 2022, 12:10:50 amDon't be so short-sighted. I make power electronics and various mains measurement meters where the sample rate can be in the ~100kHz range, and I want to plot it without missing samples on a Windows program such as SerialPlot, or log as a CSV,without spending months screwing around any OS software. It's been absolutely invaluable in rapidly debugging field issues when I can plug a dongle into a 44kW system and know exactly what's going on with little effort, and get a nice shell into the low-level controller at the same time. Whether it was designed for it or not is irrelevant, I know it works reliably at up to ~400kbaud, but sometimes a little more juice is helpful.All of this is achieved without any on-board UART converters btw, instead using a USB dongle converter, so it's a zero-dollar, zero-effort feature with extremely high value. I realize plenty of people are going to go "well, why won't you just use USB directly", it's because:The hardware and firmware are safety certified by 3rd parties and adding 1000 LOC of USB garbage is unacceptableDeveloping OS software makes it a non-portable solution that's a pain to manage and cost valuable hoursIntegrating it into existing software solutions is more work than opening a COM port

author: PCB.Wiz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 12:58:13 am
content: Quote from: jeremy on June 01, 2022, 08:32:47 pmDid you do any speed/loopback tests on CDC ? Hopefully it's similar to their CH9102 which I did some tests on.WCH CH9102Driver : Hmm Web Download is : 8/05/2021 1.3.2021.5 but Win Update finds 8/08/2021 1.5.2021.8Looks to support 6MBd/N plus 4MBd,921600,307200.Can be erratic on unsupported Baud values, rather than round to nearest valid. eg 1.090909M -> oops sends at 25.011Hz so 50 baud ?!? WTFCH9102.TX only is quite good3Mbd = -0.594% slow - some gaps appearing,4Mbd = 98.072% sustained average.6MBd = 92.733% sustained average.Note slew rate at 6MBd is a tad marginal, not sure if Eval PCB design or device itself.FT232H <-> CH91026MBd -> CH9102.RX OK at 384 bytes, ok at 769 bytes, ok at 1024, ok at 300k one way only. impressive RX speeds6MB burst duplex, seems to have correct char count, but 9102.TX -> 232H.RX has errors in chars 0xD5 replaces some 0x55 ? Maye the soft edges are an issue ?

author: PCB.Wiz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 01:03:55 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 02, 2022, 12:10:50 amPeople always push things to what works, and get creative too- and you can blame modern MCUs, with faster BAUD rates too...I built a test fixture once, for a compressed air system. Continual Serial TX was PDM modulated to give a > 7 bit DAC and handshake lines were captured from the valve signals.The whole thing dumped a .RAW file that LTSPICE could load and zoom/measure.

author: Geoff-AU
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 02:19:29 am
content: Quote from: Medo on May 29, 2022, 06:00:22 pmI raged so much about this when it bit me, too. Swore off Prolific and said I'd only ever use FTDI, etc.Then FTDI started permanently bricking clones and I went... oooh hang on.. that's a new level of evil. Microsoft smacked them for that one, because they snuck it into a WHQL driver.I understand the manufacturers' plight as well. There's no right answer.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 02:20:50 am
content: Devices from WCH are the answer. They perform well and there is no chance they would be messing with the drivers.

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 02:38:53 am
content: Stuff isn't ACTUALLY a UART; it's just that we want a high-speed data path between the PC and the microcontroller, and the UART api is one of the few that is universally usable (and relatively easy to use) across multiple operating systems and programming languages.QuoteI'm pretty sure that isn't true, but I can't find an actual datasheet for the WD1402 (first commercially available UART chip.) The DEC DZV11, which used their internal implementation of a UART(~1978), and the relatively common AY-5-1013 (which has no handshaking signals at all) were both capable of 19.2kbps.

author: Geoff-AU
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 02:49:01 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on June 02, 2022, 02:20:50 amNot for Prolific/FTDIBut yes.. I'll happily use a CH340 in everything now. USB-serial devices are not so revolutionary that we need to have driver wars over who copied who. Prolific/FTDI are trying to prop up a dying business model if they have to do what they're doing.The "right" way was for Chinese manufacturers to go off and develop their own chips and drivers rather than bootlegging. But that horse has bolted.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 02:51:32 am
content: Quote from: westfw on June 02, 2022, 02:38:53 amYes! There are two concepts that are being mixed up here. The fact the driver creates a VCP (virtual COM port) has no relationship with the fact the physical interface on the other side of your USB interface is an UART or not.You can have any of them in any combination. When the interface on your device's side is not an UART, the baud rate is absolutely meaningless, but a VCP driver will still allow using the serial API of the OS, which can make things much easier - otherwise, you often have to provide a custom library. Conversely, in particular with FTDI chips, you can use one of their USB to UART chips with the D2XX drivers, which allow access to them with the FTDI API instead of using the serial API of the OS. The latter typically allows you to get info you can't get using the serial API, such as the device name, manufacturer string, VID, PID, etc, which allows you to identify the product, something that you can't do with a serial API.

author: jeremy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 06:13:28 am
content: Quote from: PCB.Wiz on June 02, 2022, 12:58:13 amHow did you do these tests? I have a few devices so I'm happy to run some on them if you can explain what you did. I just ran the following python script:Code:import serialtest_data = bytes(range(256)) * 20port1_path = "/dev/ttyACM0"port2_path = "/dev/ttyACM1"baudrates = [115200, 921600, int(1e6), int(2e6), int(3e6), int(4e6), int(5e6), int(6e6)]for baudrate in baudrates:with serial.Serial(port=port1_path, baudrate=baudrate, timeout=1) as port1:with serial.Serial(port=port2_path, baudrate=baudrate, timeout=1) as port2:port1.flushInput()port2.flushInput()port1.write(test_data)result = port2.read(len(test_data))if test_data == result:print(baudrate, "OK")else:print(baudrate, "FAIL")TX and RX are wired to eachother on two CH343 (these boards:https://www.waveshare.com/ch343-usb-uart-board.htm). Note that they are enumerated as ttyACM aka USB CDC. The output is:Code:115200 OK921600 OK1000000 OK2000000 OK3000000 OK4000000 OK5000000 OK6000000 OKI didn't actually check the timing of the outputs with an oscilloscope. Here is the lsusb -v output:Code:Bus 003 Device 059: ID 1a86:55d3 QinHeng Electronics USB Single SerialDevice Descriptor:bLength 18bDescriptorType 1bcdUSB 1.10bDeviceClass 2 CommunicationsbDeviceSubClass 0bDeviceProtocol 0bMaxPacketSize0 8idVendor 0x1a86 QinHeng ElectronicsidProduct 0x55d3bcdDevice 4.43iManufacturer 0iProduct 2 USB Single SerialiSerial 3 (serial removed, but it is definitely here)bNumConfigurations 1Configuration Descriptor:bLength 9bDescriptorType 2wTotalLength 0x0043bNumInterfaces 2bConfigurationValue 1iConfiguration 0bmAttributes 0x80(Bus Powered)MaxPower 134mAInterface Descriptor:bLength 9bDescriptorType 4bInterfaceNumber 0bAlternateSetting 0bNumEndpoints 1bInterfaceClass 2 CommunicationsbInterfaceSubClass 2 Abstract (modem)bInterfaceProtocol 1 AT-commands (v.25ter)iInterface 0CDC Header:bcdCDC 1.10CDC Call Management:bmCapabilities 0x00bDataInterface 1CDC ACM:bmCapabilities 0x02line coding and serial stateCDC Union:bMasterInterface 0bSlaveInterface 1Endpoint Descriptor:bLength 7bDescriptorType 5bEndpointAddress 0x83 EP 3 INbmAttributes 3Transfer Type InterruptSynch Type NoneUsage Type DatawMaxPacketSize 0x0010 1x 16 bytesbInterval 1Interface Descriptor:bLength 9bDescriptorType 4bInterfaceNumber 1bAlternateSetting 0bNumEndpoints 2bInterfaceClass 10 CDC DatabInterfaceSubClass 0bInterfaceProtocol 0iInterface 0Endpoint Descriptor:bLength 7bDescriptorType 5bEndpointAddress 0x02 EP 2 OUTbmAttributes 2Transfer Type BulkSynch Type NoneUsage Type DatawMaxPacketSize 0x0020 1x 32 bytesbInterval 0Endpoint Descriptor:bLength 7bDescriptorType 5bEndpointAddress 0x82 EP 2 INbmAttributes 2Transfer Type BulkSynch Type NoneUsage Type DatawMaxPacketSize 0x0040 1x 64 bytesbInterval 0can't get debug descriptor: Resource temporarily unavailableDevice Status: 0x0000(Bus Powered)

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 06:24:59 am
content: Quote from: MikeK on June 01, 2022, 06:41:34 pmWhy comment on something you have no idea about, whatsoever? Look up old discussions about FTDI. The key you probably missed was injecting a malicious piece of software in Windows Update, which didactual damageon customer's legally owned equipment. This is actually a criminal offense (although no one ever pressed charges AFAIK), and pretty much a definition of being an asshole. Totally different compared to just not providing a working driver.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 07:03:45 am
content: Quote from: jeremy on June 02, 2022, 06:13:28 amI don't think this is a valid test. This tests that UART part works at those baudrates, but it does not guarantee that USB part works. Small amounts would be buffered by the OS. You need to send/receive megabytes and do a time measurement for a real test. Or at least observe with a scope that the UART stream is solid.Quote from: jeremy on June 02, 2022, 06:13:28 amGood. This is a real ACM device. And at $0.88 in single quantities, it is a very good option.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 07:06:03 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 02, 2022, 02:51:32 amThe MCP2200 uses the standard CDC driver but also presents itself as a HID device.The HID devices are special in that they have a separate API that allows you to talk to them directly trough a simple generic driver. This HID device is what allows the chip to be configured, identified, the GPIO pins controlled etc... No need for any extra driver, just user land software that can talk the appropriate APIYou could present your USB device as anything proprietary you want if you write a driver to go with it. But not only is writing a driver very complicated you also need to bribe Microsoft to digitally sign it (while they pretend they checked your driver) and then also port your driver to to other platforms like Linux and make sure it works on the huge zoo of distros. It's a shitshow that nobody would want to deal with. So you just use an existing driver that does something close to what you want to do.A similar thing is happening to game input devices. Gamepads, Joystics, Wheels etc... generally present themselves as a HID game controller device that then can be accessed using the DirectInput API. But this driver and API just see the device as something with say 4 analog axies and 12 digital inputs. There is no standard that says if "Axis 0" is X or Y on a joystick. There is no standard that says where "Button 4" is. This means the user has to often remap the axies and buttons in every game they use it with. If only there was a better way....Well Microsoft also made the Xbox consoles, the controllers talk USB, but used a proprietary plug (not for PC use) and so had a special xbox driver. Later on this driver was ported to PC and controllers ware given standard USB connectors. Since the consoles ran a stripped down windows kernel meant that this also ported the proprietary API for talking to the controller named "XInput". This API had strict definition for where each axis and button is (Since all the xbox controllers are basically the same) and as a result games started using this API and it always worked out of the box with zero setup (Since the game developers now knew where each button was).So wouldn't it be great if other game controllers worked like this? They could make some sort of standard on what each axis does and them they would also work out of the box!... However that would require all the manufacturers to come to an agreement. So what did they do instead? They started making controllers that pretend to be a Xbox controller on USB... They are not a xbox controller, they might not even look similar to an xbox controller, but if they pretend they are the OS will handle them in a way they want. This went so far that the biggest game distribution platform Steam added the functionality for Xbox controller emulation into there windows client. Once this feature is turned on Steam installs a special Xbox controller driver that acts like a real controller but takes inputs from Steam. This then allows steam to on the fly remap the inputs from any other controller (DirectInput, PlayStation, Nintendo..etc) into XInput controls. All of this software hackery just because most games know where the buttons on a Xbox controller are.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 08:15:37 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on June 02, 2022, 06:24:59 amIf I unwittingly purchase stolen goods in the UK, I am not the legal owner, and I could even be convicted of receiving stolen goods, despite no malice on my part. These fake ICs operate using stolen IP, so would the purchaser actually be the legal owner? Similar situation with illegally downloaded music, DCMA didn't stop it but, boy, if the music industry had the option to block stolen music playing (like FTDI did for its uarts) you bet they would do it

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 08:22:51 am
content: Quote from: Berni on June 02, 2022, 07:06:03 amThis is incorrect.WinUSB WCIDdevices can look and operate as proprietary devices but have plug n play functionality, using the WinUSB driver. No bribes or signing required.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 10:11:21 am
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 02, 2022, 08:15:37 amStolen goods are a different legal concept than 'stolen' IP, unlicensed copies or counterfeits. In the case of FTDI it's about chips with the same functionality sold as FTDI products, IIRC. Not a direct copy, a different design which is compatible.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 10:20:17 am
content: Quote from: madires on June 02, 2022, 10:11:21 amThe USB VID PID are adirect copysuch that the device will use FTDI drivers without a license to do so, ergo IP infringement. Such devices could have been legally seized and destroyed at customs (as with all counterfeit goods that infringe IPR), instead FTDI destroyed it when in customers hands.I'm no FTDI fanboy, just stating the legal situation as I see it.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 12:54:15 pm
content: Where is the IP in a USB VID/PID. email address, IP address or Ethernet MAC? And yes, customs may detroy counterfeits when following procedures in accordance with the rule of law. But when FTDI do this themselves it would be vigilantism which is clearly a crime, also damage to property. In some countries the unrequested manipulation of ITK devices is a crime too.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 04:28:13 pm
content: Quote from: madires on June 02, 2022, 12:54:15 pmWhere is the IP in digital music, it's just numbers in a file after all?Where is the IP in a book, it's just letters on pages, right?USB VID and PID are licensed by theUSB-IF.Our society is built on a set of values and rules, IPR is part of that.China also signed up to IPR rules, but not really, it just pretends so it can attract foreign investment (from fools like ARM!).QuoteIf I paid £20 for a counterfeit copy of AoE book on Amazon, is it legally mine?I don't think so, although the packaging it arrives in is definitely mine, if you see what I meanAnd you still have the packaging, right?Anyway, FTDI made some changes to their driver, as they are entitled to do.Third party equipment using their driver illegally was apparently adversely affected. Oops.Talk to your equipment vendor

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 04:32:14 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 02, 2022, 04:28:13 pmOnly if you signed an agreement with USB IF. Otherwise they are just numbers. You can use any numbers and they can't legally do anything to you. The only thing you can't do is put their logo on your product.Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 02, 2022, 04:28:13 pmThis is their right, for sure. But all it achieved is irreparable damage to their reputation and made solutions from WCH more attractive. Good.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 04:48:10 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on June 02, 2022, 04:32:14 pmI'm not sure what happens when someone starts cybersquatting on your VID.That would be annoying. Any other precedent for this?QuoteJust like you can't put the FTDI logo on your product?QuotePerhaps irreparable damage amoung low-end vendors who actually put crap like that in their products.Professional companies that buy components through certified channels, probably didn't notice or care.And it effectively wrote off some dodgy Chinese fabs wafer masks.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 05:16:50 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on June 02, 2022, 04:32:14 pmI admit I don't know all the legal aspects of using a VID that is not registered, in a commercial product, and worse yet, using a VID that has been attributed to another company. In the latter case, I'd assume the company may be able to sue, but I'd sure like to have a legal POV on this.Even if it turns out you can't get sued for this, this is definitely utterly wrong both for the company you'd be using the VID of, and for the customers that may wrongly associate your device with another company. That's just completely unethical, if it's not illegal. And since pretty much all OSs supporting USB use the VID and PID to load the corresponding driver, that is also likely to interfere with other devices. Awful.Now there's definitely something problematic with USB VIDs. That was OK in the early days, but 16 bits? Hello?I haven't seen whether the USB std comittee was considering changing this, or if it has already (haven't taken a close look at the latest revisions of the std.)

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 05:26:06 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 02, 2022, 04:28:13 pmProtected by copyright.Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 02, 2022, 04:28:13 pmVID and PID are just numbers and one can't coypright or protect numbers. But you can register a brand name, like FTDI.Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 02, 2022, 04:28:13 pmI don't know the UK specifics, but over here the answer would be 'yes'. And you won't get into trouble as long as you keep the book and don't pass it on in any way.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 05:35:24 pm
content: Quote from: madires on June 02, 2022, 05:26:06 pmI think you need to understand EU IPR laws better.Counterfeit goods entering Germany/EU may be seized and destroyed by customs officials.So they don't think you legally own it, do they?Anyway, I also lost the use of a few cheapo FTDI USB adapters around the lab when FTDI gate happened. Meh.I guess the difference is some people blame FTDI, whereas others blame the counterfeiters.I blame myself for buying cheap on eBay!

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 05:37:49 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 02, 2022, 04:48:10 pmYes, this is wrong, and I'm not saying that clones are in the right at all. But I'm not sure FTDI's actions were strategically correct. I don't think they've got what they wanted out of that. They were perfectly legal, of course. But you can be sure that long term the customers that got affected by those fakes will think twice about using FTDI chips in general, especially given that some of those fakes got into legitimate channels.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 05:43:43 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 02, 2022, 05:16:50 pmThey are against that for some reason. Extending the bit range would be hard, but selling smaller ranges would be a good solution. I personally would have no problems paying them $20 per single VID:PID pair. This will be way more profitable for them than selling entire VID with most of the PIDs being lost.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 05:53:24 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on June 02, 2022, 05:43:43 pmYes, but that would break the association between a company and a vendor ID, which would cause many issues. I guess you're considering that for the range of VIDs still available, and thus stop licensing the new ones entirely, but just by chunks. (Yes, it's absurd that the PID was defined as wide as the VID.) But that would still cause problem with the existing scheme.That said, the scheme you suggest is something that was (I don't know if they still do) offered by FTDI, for instance. As a customer you could ask for a range of 8 PIDs using the FTDI VID. I did get my 8 PIDs a few years ago. I don't know if they still offer that. But of course, you could use the FTDI VID (and then your own PIDs) only with FTDI devices, so you were still linked to FTDI in some way.I guess the whole issue of changing this is backward compatibility, as even a USB 3.x device is supposed to at least enumerate on a host with an older revision of USB, and the fact the USB transaction starts at full speed before switching to higher speed, meaning any device must support the old VID/PID scheme even if new revisions of the std introduced wider VIDs? Crap.If that gets stuck like this, USB is eventually going to die and be replaced with something else. This is just not sustainable.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 05:55:57 pm
content: For open-source projects you can get a free PID fromhttps://pid.codes/

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 06:03:59 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 02, 2022, 05:53:24 pmI don't really see any issues it would cause. You will just have a VID for a company called "Shared VID". And I don't see why company even matters at all. The only thing it adds is ability to fetch a string description by index, but in reality, who cares?Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 02, 2022, 05:53:24 pmMany companies do that, but I would stay away from it. You can only use those PIDs in connection with the company's product. So, if you for some reason decide to use a different device in the next version of the product, you are screwed.It may not be as important for COM port adapters and other fixed function ICs. But doing this though MCU vendors for a custom firmware is just stupid in a long run.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 06:04:56 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 02, 2022, 05:55:57 pmBut that's as "legal" as using a random VID:PID pair. Plus there are multiple unconnected projects like this.I know those companies try to use VIDs issued before the USB IF licence was changed, but it is still a very fragile scheme.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 06:11:46 pm
content: It seems fairly legit to me. From their website:QuoteAlso the guy is a CTO in USA, with his contact details right there - he would be easy target for a cease-and-desist from USB-IF. But seems like they chose not to do that...hard to believe they are unaware.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 06:16:40 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 02, 2022, 06:11:46 pm"Gifting" here is the legally questionable part. But yes, USF IF revoked all those mass shared VIDs. They can't re-use them of course, but in that case you can just pick a random PID in some defunct company VID. The only advantage is that this is at least some form of conflict control. But in that case it is actually advantageous to not have a previously valid VID so you never even enter into contractual relationship with USB IF.There is this site that sells PIDs for commercial products using the same schemehttps://www.mcselec.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&product_id=92&option=com_phpshop, but their VID is also revoked.So, USB IF made it clear that they don't want this scheme to exist, even though legally they are limited to revoking the VIDs.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 06:18:20 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on June 02, 2022, 06:03:59 pmIt's not ideal, but at least that gives you a solution if you don't want to/can't get your own VID. It's better than nothing, and can be used as a temporary measure until you can get your own VID, for instance.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 06:30:46 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on June 02, 2022, 06:16:40 pmI don't seen how that accomplishes much, afaict as long as people isn't using USB trademarks or a member of the USB-IF thereisn't much they can do to punish people using those VIDs, and they can't really assign those "squatted" VIDs to a company joining the USB-IF

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 06:35:07 pm
content: Absolutely. That's why I'm saying that USB IF might as well just make their own service for single pairs. No matter what it is a shit show, but they might be leading it at least.There is nothing they can do to people using random numbers.

author: montecri
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 07:07:57 pm
content: A while ago I needed a serial/USB adapter cable. Didn't want to take any chances so I paid a bit more for a "branded" one (Sabrent). Installed prolific drivers and tried to use, BANG! the driver refused to work (at that time the driver didn't tell you were using a fake, only a yellow exclamation mark and some generic message).After several hours of debugging, experimentation, reading, etc. I discovered my "branded" cable had a counterfeit chip (prolific even had a little app to tell if your chip were original or not).Tried to contact Sabrent multiple times, but never got a reply.So, in this case, it's Sabrent fault for mass-producing a product with a counterfeit chip inside.Will never buy anything from them again.

author: PCB.Wiz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 08:23:26 pm
content: Quote from: jeremy on June 02, 2022, 06:13:28 amFWIR below 6MBd 'applied' ok , and only above 6Mbd did it give an error message.The problem with below 6Mbd is theactualbaud, was not always the nearest to 6M/N - it has some strange jump-about effects, as my 50 baud example shows !I connected a frequency counter, and sent large files of 0x55. In an ideal world, that gives an exact frequency of baud/2I use a terminal program that counts Tx and Rx characters and reports the transmission time, which gives another sanity check on baud rates.I tested Tx only, and loopback too, which drops the numbers a little - 6Mbd loopback managed 4.763600Mbd average, which is quite good considering it needs both way traffic. on the 12Mbit USBA 'good' device can loopback and not drop characters. ie it does not feed out TX chars, faster than the other RX pathway can process them.I caught this once, on loopback at 6Mbd it lost 64 chars of 6.9M. Loopback TX seems to be in bursts of 32 chars, with gaps as needed.Strange at 6MBd 6899936 vs 6900000, dropped 64 but always about 7M chars ?A simple python comparison would be to send a large array of 7M 0x55 and time and confirm Rx count, for a few tests.The CH9102 at 6Mbd would predict it takes 7M*10/4.763600M = 14.694 seconds.Start the test with a small file, to confirm you have the expected baud speed

author: PCB.Wiz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2022, 08:36:38 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on June 02, 2022, 07:03:45 amYes, a frequency counter is good for this 'physical level test', as it can uncover even fractional effects.You also need to check the actual baud rate is 'as expected'. An ideal part should snap to the nearest valid baud rate, but they do not all do that. My CH9102 does strange things with some baud values,There are also funny effects of special cases.921600 6M/6.5 = 923077 actual baud, but MUST ask for 921600 as special case tested, asking for the actual value of 923077 snaps to 6M/7 (857143 Bd)

author: jeremy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2022, 01:00:03 am
content: I had a very quick look at the CH343 on the frequency counter and the oscilloscope. The frequency counter was not very stable, even with a 2s gate time. I had a look at the signal on the scope, and it appears that my dodgy connectionsare not good enough for the slew rate of this device as there is an enormous amount of ringing even on 115200. So I will need to revisit when I have time to look at this properly.Also, I did notice the weird behaviour you described at 5M baud; the signal that comes out is roughly 19200 baud. I had another look in the datasheet and it says"CH343 supports common baud rate: 50, 75, 100, 134.5, 150, 300, 600, 900, 1200, 1800, 2400, 3600, 4800, 9600, 14400, 19200, 28800, 33600, 28400, 56000, 57600, 76800, 115200, 128000, 153600, 230400, 256000, 460800, 921600, 1M, 1.5M, 2M, 3M, 4M 6M etc."I have no idea why it says "etc" at the end, but indeed 5M is not on this list.It also has the following tidbit:"In applications with higher communication baud rate, it is recommended to enable hardware automatic flow control. Full speed USB is only 12Mbps, consider the protocol overhead and other factors, in practical applications, the serial port should be avoided in a continuous or full duplex of 3Mbps and above high speed communication status".

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 12:18:38 am
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 02, 2022, 08:15:37 amSo many misconceptions in one post...IP infringement is not theft, and the laws surrounding it are completely different than those surrounding stolen goods; there is no connection whatsoever.If 'stolen' IP was used to manufacture these clone ICs, then FTDI would be literally unable to detect them, because they'd be indistinguishable, and they would not have been able to do the bricking they did. Ergo, while it might not be a totally clean-room implementation, it is clearly not copyright infringement, it's just a compatible implementation which is completely legal and in many jurisdictionsexplicitly protected. It's possible (though I find it highly unlikely) that some sort of illegal corporate espionage occurred in the creation of these clones, but you'd have to actually show that and go after that action, which would almost certainly be a civil dispute that wouldn't make the products themselves illegal.Even in the case that these chips are completely illegal to own, only legal or law enforcement action can actually legally change ownership of them. You do not have the right to destroy someone else's stolen property if you believe it to be illegal, you must seek legal recourse.VID/PID are 'protected' by USB-IF's trademarks, so they won't let you certify as official USB devices and use their branding, but other than that, they're just numbers and can't be otherwise protected. You can probably use it to support a trademark infringement claim, but because of the interoperability angle, there's a pretty solid counter argument.Maybe you could argue some sort of EULA issue with using the driver, but that'd be a civil dispute with the end user, and considering we're talking about drivers auto-installed by Windows, I don't think there evenisan EULA shown to you.The only real IP infringement happening here is on FTDI's trademark, and enforcement of that generally ends with customs, even when Louis Vuitton or whatever much larger and higher profile brand tries to push a crack down and trademark only applies to commercial dealing and not ownership anyway, so you can only go after those misrepresenting the brand, not the individuals buying the stuff. I guess they often distribute copied drivers on a CD with the end product, so maybe copyright infringement there... but that's just the driver CD and not the chips.And on top of the legal aspects, it just seems like a braindead business decision. The end user who ends up screwed is not FTDI's customer, and may not even know what's going on. Design engineers that *are* the customer are going to look at this and just see risk - what if there's a supply chain issue and I end up with clones? What if FTDI's brickware misdetects a legitimate chip? It's just cutting of your nose to spite your face by soiling the whole brand in uncertainty.With respect to Prolific jumping on this bandwagon, geeze, did they think it went well for FTDI? Yikes, never mind the legal situation, this just reeks of desperation after it was widely considered a blunder by FTDI. ISTR that Prolific were the first ones to try this too, way back in the 2000s, didn't the drivers intentionally bluescreen when used with the clones of the time?

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 02:45:00 pm
content: Quote from: ve7xen on June 04, 2022, 12:18:38 amDeliberate IP infringement is either a civil or criminal offence, depending on the jurisdiction.In the UK the following laws may be brought to bear in theprosecutionof IP theft:QuoteThe above items in bold may also be used in prosecution of stolen goods offences.So your assertion that "there is no connection whatsoever" is incorrect, in this jurisdiction.QuoteThey are visibly distinguished by fraudulent use of the FTDI logo. At the silicon level, I agree. I never said any silicon IP was stolen. On Windows, they have made use of the FTDI driver, ergo IP theft, 'stolen' IP as I phrased it. If these devices had only been used on linux (with the open kernel driver) and did not have FTDI markings, there would be no infringement at all (assuming they had never signed a contract with USB-IF).QuoteThat is true. But from another point of view, your counterfeit devices could legally have been seized and destroyed by customs at the time of import. So, on the bright side you successfully smuggled them in, and got some use of them for few months or yearsIf you feel particularly aggrieved, you are free to pursue legal recourse yourself, perhaps through a small claims court, or such like. I don't think that would give the result you want.QuoteThink of the fake FTDI device as a counterfeit dongle, allowing you to illegally use some commercially licensed software package. In this case, the software happens to be a commercially licensed driver, ergo IP theft (on Windows).QuoteIt's not that you can't legally go after the end user, its just a PITA. Like the RIAA music theft letters to downloaders debacle.QuoteI think FTDI and Prolific felt huge pressure to fight back against counterfeiters and with Chinese government acting the way does, there was essentially no legal recourse there. I think the manufacturers who got burned were by-and-large shady outfits who were aware and happy to use counterfeit devices in their products. They would never have paid the price for genuine ICs anyway. I think FTDI's reputation amoungst high quality brands, who use certified supply chains, is unaffected TBH.

author: Brianf
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 03:31:15 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 04, 2022, 02:45:00 pm^^^^^^^THAT.I use FTDI and continue to use FTDI because they make good products. I buy from authorised distributors for every component I use for my products.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 04:19:03 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 04, 2022, 02:45:00 pmThat is all nice and dandy but what FTDI did as a response was wrong in several ways:1) They broke end-user equipment which was otherwise fine and in no way a violation of FTDI's intellectual property (remember the fakes where functionally equivalent; not copies). Breaking other people's property is a crime; I don't want to buy products from companies that resort to criminal behaviour. There is a legal system for a reason.2) Having a driver that depends on finger printing poses a risk of having false positives (which actually happened) and that is a no-go for me. I need every bit of reliability I can get.All in all I'll never use a device from FTDI again. And I don't have to; there are many alternatives out there which also work right out of the box.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 05:07:40 pm
content: Yep, Prolific's driver simply ignores non-genuine chips. This is annoying but reasonable and legal. However, FTDI deliberately bricked non-genuine chips which is criminal in several ways. I can't trust them anymore.

author: Brianf
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 05:31:24 pm
content: I'm always impressed with just how many lawyers, especially ones versed in global IP law, hang out on engineering forums!Answer me this those who claim FTDI committed an illegal act, why has no-one prosecuted them?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 05:34:26 pm
content: Quote from: Brianf on June 04, 2022, 05:31:24 pmIt is not worth the hassle! In Dutch we have a saying 'it costs a cow to have a legal battle over a cow'. Besides that, FTDI probably has lost quite a bit of business already because people voted with their wallets.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 05:52:37 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 04, 2022, 04:19:03 pmThey were branded FTDI, there's an IP violation right there.They were using the FTDI driver without license to do so, another IP violation.And if they weren't using the FTDI driver but ONLY the open linux driver, you would be unaffected.QuoteHah, if you were bitten,you did exactly that, by purchasing counterfeit products from criminals (aka dodgy chinese fabs and government).The legal system failed you and FTDI equally.QuoteIndeed, accept it. Move on. Remember to get your alternatives from reputable sources though, wouldn't want you to get bit again.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 05:54:04 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 04, 2022, 05:34:26 pmI think the cheapskates will just move to the next cheap counterfeit chip. FTDI won't see much difference.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 06:00:40 pm
content: This has been discussed at great length already, so probably not useful to do it all over again, especially since the exact same arguments are likely going to be used on both sides.Let's just say that it was counterfeiting, which is fraud, and as to customers, I understand they have been "victims" of that, but in many juridictions AFAIK, even the end-buyer of a counterfeit product may be held liable. Then you'd have to prove you could definitely not know and that you had been scammed. I understand it probably has been annoying for some customers, but this is nothing else than counterfeiting, and it has nothing to do with just offering a "compatible" device that doesn't claim to be genuine. All customers should have blamed the product vendors rather than FTDI. But of course, many if not most of the companies selling products with counterfeit parts were chinese companies that you had exactly zero chance of sueing anyway. That's a general problem that's not just linked to this FTDI case. If you're doing "business" with a company that you know beforehand that will never do anything if you have any problem with a product you buy from them, you should know what to expect.Counterfeiting is a criminal offense. FTDI's move may not have been smart, but 1/ we all know they got the lesson for sure and 2/ after all, they could do whatever they want with their drivers. Was doing what they did illegal? Somehow, many people have taken sides and chosen the illegal rather than the legal. And in many cases, for products that were worth less than $20 or $30. Oh well. =)

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 06:04:31 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 04, 2022, 05:52:37 pmNo, that is a trademark violation where it might even be that FTDI didn't register their trademark in the country where the functionally equivalent (which is not counterfeiting!) devices where produced. This gets you into the grey area where it might be legal to use a name in certain places but not in another (with all kinds of import/export issues). For that reason we'll probably never see a 'Wendy's' (a US hamburger chain) in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg because another company own that trade name in those countries.IP violation is way too generic termPut simplistically:Trademark violation = using a logo without permissionCopyright violation =using copyrighted materials (literature / software) without a licenseQuoteNo, the end user was using an FTDI driver without a license. But also did this unknowingly. The manufacturers of the fake devices did not distribute FTDI's driver so they did not infringe any copyrights.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 06:16:58 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 04, 2022, 06:04:31 pmErm, those all fall underintellectual property rights. A trademark violation is exactly an IP violation. And because of that, those products should have been destroyed at point of entry to the EU (where you live BTW). It is very nice of you get upset on behalf of people in those other countries which are not signed up toWIPO.QuoteIf a counterfeiter produces a USB dongle which enables illegal use of a commercial software package, I believe that is a criminal offence in the UK. It is exactly a 'Common Law offence of conspiracy to defraud' as I posted earlier.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 06:21:41 pm
content: Quote from: Brianf on June 04, 2022, 05:31:24 pmNo plaintiff, no judge. Who would file a complaint or sue FTDI for a broken gadget worth a few bucks?

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 06:23:46 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 04, 2022, 06:00:40 pmAgree, and with the rest of your post.I never partook in this debate before and I'm rather enjoying it.But I'll probably leave it there.No malice to anyone, best wishes to all, thanks for the entertainment.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 06:53:06 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 02, 2022, 10:20:17 amThere is an important concept in intellectual property and copyright:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originalityA song is copyrighted, playing a single note on a piano is not. Same with VID/PID, two 16-bit numbers. Obviously it is not under copyright. Similarly, you are free to copy any two letters from this forum post without infringing my copyright.QuoteActually no, they are not entitled to write and distribute software which purposely damage equipment of others. This is just totally indisputable; and you can't do anything else but to keep moving goalposts, add more lies and false claims over the top of all your existing strawman arguments.But I think it would be best to just stop embarrassing yourself any more than that; you are already pretty deep. Especially because it has been discussed to death already.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 07:04:14 pm
content: I cannot think of a way more effective than what FTDI did. It really made people aware of the counterfeit problem.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 07:29:39 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on June 04, 2022, 06:53:06 pmProduction of fake software licenses (numbers), or fake software USB dongles (containing numbers) is 'conspiracy to defraud'. Furthermore, Microsoft and others have even gone after end users of software using such fake licenses, demanding payment. IMO (IANAL) using a direct copy of the FTDI VID PID on a USB device in order to run unlicensed software (in this case a driver) is effectively a fake dongle, and also prosecutable as 'conspiracy to defraud', against the vendor...if they weren't in China.Anyhow, the fake FTDI chips are definetly illegal, if not for the numbers in them, then the logo on top of them.QuoteIt's a grey area. It would be mildly interesting to see this all play out in court.QuoteYour concern for me is very touching, thank you. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Sometimes in life you have the best fun when your embarrassing yourself, like when playing hide n seek with the kids, or up on stage singing at their pre-school 'graduation'. It's actually great, you should try it and be happy.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 08:23:03 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 04, 2022, 07:29:39 pmI remember correctly there was a court case against a company making accounting software that intentionally damaged databases of pirated copy users. Damaged by making small modifications in random places, not by completely wiping it out. So, as you can imagine you can't trust any data. If I remember correctly they lost the case.But I just spent 30 minutes trying to find that case and I can't remember enough details to find anything useful. There is a lot of stuff on piracy, so finding that specific case is hard.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 09:52:37 pm
content: I don't think there's anything so distinctive of USB-serial ICs now. It's almost like a 555 or 7805 at this point. They're commodity and there's nothing they can do about it. Yet the greedy companies go to all this effort just to anger their customers. I'd love to analyze how they are checking for authenticity in the driver and publish it so people start possibly making open-source clones too.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 09:57:36 pm
content: You don't need a clone of FTDI. There is just no need for that. All OSes come with CDC ACM drivers and the firmware is trivially available for any MCU with USB. The issue here is the need for programming of another MCU in production, and maintenance of the firmware. But if this is not an issue, then using MCU would be cheaper than FTDI device. WCH is even cheaper and does not need programming.The reason for initial clones is to specifically make fakes. There is no value in non-branded devices that are compatible with FTDI drivers.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 10:17:38 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on June 04, 2022, 09:57:36 pmNowadays that is true. The problem was that Windows didn't recognise CDC ACM devices out of the box up to Windows 7 (IIRC) so you always needed to mess around with drivers. FTDI somehow convinced Microsoft to ship their drivers with Windows which gave them a competitive edge. But with most of the world switched to Windows 10 that recognises almost all USB serial devices out of the box, there is no advantage of using FTDI over anything else.

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2022, 11:59:57 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 04, 2022, 02:45:00 pmI'm not sure how what you quoted supports this, since it doesn't mention theft at all. The point is that IP infringement is not theft. It's not legally treated remotely the same as theft. Stop calling it theft.QuoteExactly. So the usage is what might be infringing, and the device is not. You can't tell what markings it has on it, or if they are visible to the user from the driver.You did say theft, and the only reasonable application of the word theft here (it's still not correct, but at least it's appropriating something you didn't create) would be using their design (through corporate espionage), or dies that failed QC and were meant to be destroyed or something which isn't the case here.QuoteOnly because it may be difficult to prove malice. But legally you're not allowed to intentionally break someone else's stuff, legally imported or not, so it seems pretty clearly illegal.QuoteThis is a creative argument but I think even the overly broad DMCA requires it to be an intentional copy protection mechanism that is circumvented, which is not the case here, it's just functionality interoperable.QuoteNo, you literally can't. Trademark only protects against commercial dealing. You can't go after infringing products once they're in the consumer's hands. The whole point of trademark is to prevent consumers from being deceived, so there is no reason to extend it to ownership etc. For the same reason, selling a complex product that includes an FTDI clone IC but doesn't use their brand, like say a 3D printer, is also probably not infringing, despite it containing an infringing part. You can only go after misuse of the trademark itself when it might cause confusion. Copyright works differently.QuoteI understand why there want to do something like this, but all it is actually going to accomplish is increasing risk of selecting their product in a design. Despite our best efforts, supply chain incidents happen, as do false positives when it comes to subtle differences like that must use to detect clones. It's going to push both legitimate and shady alike to alternate options, and the clones will just improve or ship an old driver or whatever. It's a commodity product at this point, and this kind of response is not going to help them keep what part of the market they have left, there are plenty of alternatives.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 12:41:40 pm
content: Hello ve7xen. Firstly, thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts in such an organised manner.Quote from: ve7xen on June 04, 2022, 11:59:57 pmIP infringement is theft and is prosecuted as such in the UK. ThisCPS linkdescribes the prosecution of trademark infringement and it specifically describes the role of the Theft Act 1968. The relevant quote is "'loss' includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has". That is the crux of IP theft, it is exactly the loss of revenue due to such fraudulent activity.So it is theft. Please stop saying it isn't!QuoteThat is the fun part of all this. FTDI's strategy is perhaps novel, in Europe anyway. I agree, you are not allowed to break someone else's stuff, but by using counterfeit products you have lost the moral high ground and there are legal arguments to be made. Your stuff should have been confiscated anyway.QuoteTrue. But I would argue that the silicon itself was playing a role as a copy protection mechanism, since it takes significant investment to duplicate the device functionality such that it would work with the FTDI driver. Taken together, this demonstrates deliberate conspiracy to defraud.QuoteYes, you literally can. Well, officers of the law can. Many tourists returning from foreign climes with fake designer goods are disappointed to have them confiscated upon entry to a jurisdiction signed up to WIPO. Such fake goods are trademark infringements and are still subject to confiscation even when the consumer has taken 'ownership'. Confiscations are uncommon once through the borders, simply because it's not worth the effort policing it. The idea that counterfeit goods are fine 'n' dandy and legal now they are in my hands is plain wrong.QuoteFTDI have upset some people with this novel strategy. They definitely got the timing wrong - they should have done it shortly after the fake devices appeared, before they garnered so much market penetration. If they had, it would have sunk the investment the counterfeiters made by not giving them time to recoup costs. And it wouldn't have affected end users to the scale it has now.Trust in supply chains is more important than ever these days. Shady folks will just look for the cheapest workable options, whether fake or not. Legit businesses worry more. At least the FTDI event was relatively benign. It could have been worse, maybe some fake op-amps that burst into oscillation in your motor control loop or whatever.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 02:02:10 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 05, 2022, 12:41:40 pmThat is your opinion. Please quote some laws that say owning counterfeit goods is prohibited. The only reference I can find is that purchasing / commercially importing counterfeit goods is not allowed. Taking a fake designer item with you isn't problem either (at least in the Netherlands; passenger luggage is excempt) so my guess is that you are mistaken prohibited goods like endangered animals, weapons, etc which are being confisqated at borders. I can't find anything prohibiting ownership. IMHO you keep missing the finer points here trying to defend what you think is right but from a legal POV it is not correct.What if you bought something second hand in good faith and it turns out the be stolen and the original owner (who -depending on the laws that apply- might no longer be the rightful owner anyway) comes over to your home and knocks your teeth out with a baseball bat? I'm sure you are not happy. That is exactly the problem with what FTDI has been doing; they are taking matters into their own hands which is a huge no-go in a civilized society. There is no excuse for their actions.

author: tunk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 02:07:29 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 05, 2022, 12:41:40 pmI guess that's the point, FTDI is not "officers of the law".

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 02:42:52 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 05, 2022, 02:02:10 pmSale or transfer of counterfeit goods is prohibited, so as a business, selling products with counterfeit ICs is illegal, either within your WIPO country or for export.Lets be clear - you have been talking about reliability of your products. Business use.For personal use of counterfeit products, importing counterfeit goods is illegal and they are subject to confiscation at point of entry.Or indeed at any later time when theymust be surrendered on demand to officers of the law.Upon further reading, forfeiture is only applied to individuals after import if you have a view to sell or transfer offending items.So, owning them as a private individual in the UK is allowed, assuming you successfully smuggle them in.QuoteUK customstravel adviceclearly states:"The following goods may be seized and you may be prosecuted by the intellectual property right holder:Counterfeit, pirated and patent infringing goods such as CDs, DVDs, clothing, footwear and designer goods."QuoteTell them they didn't need to knock your teeth out, because they have alegal right to a refund.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 02:44:48 pm
content: Quote from: tunk on June 05, 2022, 02:07:29 pmYup, thats what makes it fun. Folks got their stolen stuff, erm, stolen.A court case about it would be mildly interesting and bound to happen at some point in the future, with FTDI or someone else.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 03:16:20 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 05, 2022, 02:42:52 pmNope, the buyer does. When you buy an FTDI chip and get a non-genuine chip instead you have the right to a refund from the seller.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 03:19:34 pm
content: Oh, yeh. Skim read it and misunderstood.

author: SpacedCowboy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 04:59:58 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on June 04, 2022, 08:23:03 pmBack in the mists of time, when Atari computers were a thing, there was a game called 'Alternate Reality' that had an interesting protection mechanism: if it detected a pirate copy, it let the game run, but you couldn't sleep at the inn (so your time was limited) and eventually you'd come across a 'monster' called an 'FBI agent' who would hit you with 'the long arm of the law'. They'd hit every time, and had a lot of hit-points so they were pretty difficult to defeat.But I think both of these cases are when software affects it's own files - which is probably a more defensible position than when it affects third-party files (or devices, in FTDI's case).I think if FTDI had just made their driver refuse to work with non-FTDI chips, that would have been seen as just fine - their software for their chips. I think it was the bricking of the non-FTDI chips that was the problem. Just my $0.02.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 05:05:30 pm
content: There was a much more ironic example of this in recent history. In a game called "Game Dev Tycoon" you could play as normal, but in a pirated version it is impossible to win, you always lose to piracy in the game (https://www.eurogamer.net/game-dev-tycoon-forces-those-who-pirate-the-game-to-unwittingly-fail-from-piracy).A lot of people went to the forums complaining that piracy is not letting them progress in a game, inadvertently admitting they were pirates themselves.It is hard to find a more perfect example.And yes, simply not functioning with fake ICs would be way more acceptable. Not even printing the message on the port, just do nothing.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 06:04:17 pm
content: https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/counterfeiting-intended-for-a-non-legal-audience/

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 06:07:20 pm
content: I vaguely remember another game, sort of like sims but it included running a business in the game.If it was a pirate copy, your virtual business kept going bust because of pirate software

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 09:43:42 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on June 05, 2022, 05:05:30 pmWhat's the difference? In both cases the devices stop working and I'm convinced that in both cases the FTDI haters gonna beFTDI haters. The only thing they want is that FTDI drivers continue to work with fake chips. Anything else is unacceptable forthem.

author: uer166
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 09:47:01 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on June 05, 2022, 09:43:42 pmHow do the boots taste? If you can't tell the difference then this entire discussion is like talking to a wall.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 10:11:02 pm
content: Just a reminder, counterfeit chips were not bricked by FTDI. What the FTDI driver did was reprogramming the vid and pid to zero.That way the chip was not recognized by the OS anymore. However, they can again be reprogrammed with the original vid & pid.For example using Linux.But again, this whole discussion has alraedy been done. We can all start to copy and paste from here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/ftdi-gate-2-0/

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 10:24:12 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on June 05, 2022, 05:05:30 pmDisagree. The best option would be to get an error saying 'Fake FTDI device detected. Driver disabled'. That would give the unsuspecting end user a clear message and means to complain to the supplier of the device. Not working (or even breaking stuff) just backfires. An unsuspecting user is probably going to avoid anything FTDI because some of the devices don't work (or stop working) for no good reason.Since Prolific is up to similar behaviour I'm going to avoid them as well. Again: I don't want to be in the cross fire. I couldn't care less about who is wrong or right, I don't want to deal with any of it.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2022, 10:41:44 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 05, 2022, 10:24:12 pmSure, but drivers can't display messages in UI dialogs. Prolific found a way to display it as a name string, which is acceptable, I guess.

author: Geoff-AU
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 12:34:02 am
content: Quote from: amyk on June 04, 2022, 09:52:37 pmWell they're not angering their customers. That's the whole point

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 12:37:00 am
content: Quote from: Geoff-AU on June 06, 2022, 12:34:02 amExcept when it misidentified and nuked legit devices as well.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 06:26:05 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on June 06, 2022, 12:37:00 amThere are no reports that it did. From what I understood the counterfeit chips didn't implement all optionsin the programming (EEPROM) area. So what the driver did was temporary changing a certain setting in the chip,and read the value back. If the value was the same, it set the original value back and continue to work normally.If the value read back was different, it programmed the vid & pid to zero.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 10:42:47 am
content: Quote from: Karel on June 05, 2022, 09:43:42 pmI'd think that's a prejudice. I'm totally fine with drivers ignoring fake chips. It can be annoying but it's a reasonable way the manufacturer can deal with fake chips legally.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 10:51:37 am
content: Quote from: Karel on June 05, 2022, 10:11:02 pmWhich is basically the same as bricked for the average windows user or consumer. Over here the unrequested change of VID and PID would be a crime (§ 303 StGB).

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 10:59:33 am
content: Quote from: madires on June 06, 2022, 10:42:47 amMy point is, there is no difference. In both cases, the device that contains the counterfeit chip, stops working.So, why is it a problem if the vid & pid of the counterfeit chip are set to zero?If it's a one-off device and/or hobby use: simply replace the chip.If you sold devices to your customers, you have a problem anyway. Goodluck telling your customers to rollback a driver because you used a counterfeit chip...

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 11:01:46 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on June 05, 2022, 10:41:44 pmThe train of thought could be:- gadget doesn't work with PC- user calls/emails/IMs support hotline- 2nd line support investigates issue and finds the driver's hint- manufacturer issues press release explaining the problem and offering a remedy

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 11:10:07 am
content: Quote from: Karel on June 06, 2022, 10:59:33 am- vigilantism- damage to property- IT sabotage (in some countries)

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 11:35:18 am
content: Quote from: madires on June 06, 2022, 11:10:07 amMy point is, for the enduser there's no difference, the device is unusable and the chip needs to be replaced anyway.So, the only "solution" for endusers is that FTDI does not do anything special in their drivers that interrupts or inhibits the usage of the device.

author: benSTmax
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 12:39:18 pm
content: A simpler solution to hurt less would have been for the driver to simply fill the buffers with a message like "Counterfeit chip detected"The savvy users would have been able to see this data when trying to read/write to the USB-UART chip.The less savvy users would have called the support for their affected products and the equipment manufacturer would ask them to run some test application to detect the forced (by driver) UART buffer content

author: SpacedCowboy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 01:06:03 pm
content: There is absolutely a difference. Sometimes there is more than one driver for FTDI chips (eg: MacOS, which has both built-in and downloadable drivers). A simple solution that would have made things work correctly would be “uninstall the FTDI driver”), except that zeroing out the vid/pid made that solution not work either.When you deliberately perform an action (alter the vid/pid) that harms someone else you cross a line. If instead you use inaction (just stop working with that part) that is far more defensible - I don’t think FTDI are under any obligation to support pirate chips.Trying to equate those two things is wrong, IMHO.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 01:59:12 pm
content: Quote from: benSTmax on June 06, 2022, 12:39:18 pmAnd what difference does it make for the end user? In either case the device is not working and the chip needs to be replaced.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 02:06:06 pm
content: Quote from: SpacedCowboy on June 06, 2022, 01:06:03 pmIn case the device is a one-off or a hobbyproject, that could be a solution, but only until MacOS itself receives an updated driver (e.g. after upgrading MacOS).Anyway, this is not a solution for a commercial project. Goodluck telling your customers they need to rollback and install an old driver.Specially the part where you explain them that you sold them a product with a counterfeit chip...

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 02:12:04 pm
content: It might ease the pain of loss to note that in a WIPO country you couldn't legally sell the device, or even give it away. Worst of all, you couldn't take it on holiday with you for fear that customs might confiscate it.So, something useful was lost, or at least required 'repair' (reprogramming), but it had no intrinsic monetary value. There is a cost of replacement (which hopefully wouldn't contain counterfeit goods) and it would be interesting to see if a court of law would award damages in that respect, either to an individual or to a business. In a jury trial, there would likely be a random verdict, with jurors well and truly confusdicatedAn easy solution for technical folks with the goods at hand, would be to replace the FTDI with a genuine one.That would restore both the device functionality and its monetary value. And as a bonus you could take it on holiday.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 02:43:58 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on June 06, 2022, 11:35:18 am... or the device needs to be replaced by the manufacturer or seller. Anyhow, it's not an issue that has to be fixed by the enduser or FTDI. It's totally fine when FTDI's driver ignores fake chips. But it's a crime when FTDI's driver bricks or modifies the enduser's device without consent.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 03:09:43 pm
content: Quote from: madires on June 06, 2022, 02:43:58 pm"Your honor, they disabled a counterfeit chip in our product..."

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 03:31:48 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on June 06, 2022, 03:09:43 pmIt is not as funny as you think. There is a good chance they would be found guilty if this went to court. Morally, their actions are understandable, still does not make them legal in a lot of jurisdictions.Obviously there would be an investigation, which would request all email exchanges. If those emails will show that this was done intentionally, and not as an unintended side effect of some other change, they would be found guilty of creating malicious software.The correct course of action is to go after the fakers. I understand that it is hard to impossible in this case, but this does not mean you have the right to go rouge and do whatever you want.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 03:46:08 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on June 06, 2022, 03:09:43 pmenduser != manufacturer (also from a legal point)I fully understand that some people can't differentiate ethics from law. What seems ethical is not always also lawful, and the law can be quite complex. My stance is that when the management of a company decides to take illegal actions that company can't be trusted anymore. It doesn't matter if it's a trifle or something more serious. What FTDI did was illegal in multiple ways, but Prolific's action is lawful.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 04:18:00 pm
content: Businesses who distributed infringing products are very likely blocked from any meaningful action against FTDI, since they were operating unlawfully, even if unwittingly due to a breach of supply chain.That leaves customers, either individuals or businesses, who received infringing products. They are unlikely to take legal action unless losses incurred were very high, and there is a risk of not getting the result they need, either by legitimate judgement or some technicality. Businesses would probably have a better chance of success if they went after their equipment vendor or supplier.If someone was going to try they likely would have done it by now. So it's not gonna happen for the FTDI debacle. Folks here may or may not avoid FTDI products going forward, and that's all you can do really. But at some point in the future, with high value devices from some other company, such a court case going to happen.So was the risk was commercially worth it for FTDI? Only they know.

author: SpacedCowboy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 05:04:12 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on June 06, 2022, 02:06:06 pmNo, that's not the case. The default driver built into MacOS would not have the problem - so removing the installed FTDI driver is all that is required, the MacOS original one would *work* if not for the vandalism by FTDI.Quote from: Karel on June 06, 2022, 02:06:06 pmIs rolling back (or, really just uninstalling the FTDI driver) a worse solution than "sorry, you're SOL because FTDI vandalized the device" ?Quote from: Karel on June 06, 2022, 02:06:06 pm*shrug* that's easy. "We trusted our suppliers, here's our workaround"

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 05:19:11 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 06, 2022, 04:18:00 pmResellers could sue their distributor for damages and a distributor the manufacturer. When the manufacturer is also a victim he could sue the seller of the fake chips, and so on. In some countries, e.g. Germany, there's an obligation to minimize damages in case something went wrong. So a reseller or manufacturer could sue FTDI for a partial compensation because their illegal action increased the damage (bricked device).

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 05:32:33 pm
content: Perhaps I miss something but why can't a normal user or small business write their own driver for Windows ?What is the hurdle ?Perhaps a warning that it is not MS tested and signed just as with your own programm and installer, and it is your resposibility but I really hate that after removing the parallel port and rs232 ports now the new standard ports as USB are blocked.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 05:38:59 pm
content: Not much point now there is a standard CDC driver in windows, which some WCH devices make use of.Yes, you could write one specifically for FTDI but...the signing shenanigans...nah.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 05:52:16 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on June 05, 2022, 10:41:44 pmWell, then FTDI should find a way around that. I'm the one that got the whole FTDI-gate ball rolling when developing a device that is to be used on a production line. For prototyping I got a few random boards (being unaware that FTDI clones even existed). I wasted a couple of hours because of this. The boards where working fine with Linux but didn't with Windows after a driver update. After figuring out FTDI bricked the device on purpose, I switched to a different brand (Silabs) just make sure that I would not be hit by any fall-out. Imagine a couple of production lines stopping for no good / visible reason after a Windows update? In the end I don't care much about who is wrong or right, I want the devices I design and deliver to work reliably so I'm not going to take any risks. And that proved to be good strategy as later device drivers from FTDI refused to work with legit FDTI devices; which is something that I had foreseen would happen.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 05:57:56 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on June 06, 2022, 05:32:33 pmIt's a pain in the butt requiring knowledge that few developers actually have. And since it's very low-level system-wise, any bug can have "catastrophic" consequences. (Then the MS WHQL program doesn't help either for the company's image if it decides not to go through.) That's just why.If you're ready to go through all this while making sure your product will be reliable, by all means, do it.If not, there are off-the-shelf solutions that work just fine for a very reasonable cost. While the $1 to $2 price tag may be too much for chinese companies that sell cheap gadgets at ultra low prices (and thus it makes a lot of sense for them to come up with their own solution), it rarely is a problem for a western company designing products with a decent margin.Now sure, there is this "recent" trend that almost any IC has become potentially unobtainium, and you need to find alternative solutions. But then that's a situation that is completely "new" and requires some creativity. Whether one will cross the line of ethics to make it (such as *knowingly* buying counterfeits) is a serious, but non-technical question.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 06:01:46 pm
content: For a dedicated device having kernel drivers is also not necessary. Just have Windows install a generic WinUSB driver and use WinUSB to talk to the device. The only time you really need drivers if the device provides a common service.Making custom drivers for a serial port is stupid no matter what.

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 06:18:23 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 05, 2022, 12:41:40 pmNo, it is not. If you bothered to read your own link, instead of Googling for something that supports your incorrect view and skimming it, you would realize that it is referencing the Theft Act due to the definition of gain, not the definition of intellectual property. In no part of this article is IP infringement equated with theft. The idea of treating IP infringement the same as theft is absurd.You can read the UK definition of 'theft' in the Theft Act 1968 toohttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft:"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another withthe intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."Emphasis mine, as it is a key difference between theft and IP infringement. You will also note that the Theft Act 1968 doesn't include any discussion of IP at all.QuoteVigilantism is not legally or morally defensible - regardless of your moral position on the trademark use.Quotelolwut. That's not how even the ridiculous DMCA defines a copy protection mechanism. You might try to argue this, but it's a crazy thing to argue. It's very clear in this case that the IC is purely functional and doesn't contain any copy protection mechanism.QuoteThat's true, importing is an exception and infringing stuff can be seized at the border. Otherwise, though, trademark does not generally extend to non-commercial activities, and owning something as an end user is clearly not commercial use of the trademark. As it relates to physical property, unless you are trying to sell it or import it, trademark doesn't come into play at all. There's no law that would allow the seizure or destruction of FTDI chips once they're in the hands of the end user, at least in Canada / the US, I'm not familiar with UK law but that would be pretty absurd. The point of trademark is to protect against confusion in the marketplace, and that objective is not served by seizing goods that have already made it through the marketplace to the end user.QuoteWhat makes FTDI's actions a problem is intent. If a functional clone has a problem that causes damage, that's a result of the clone's poor implementation. It doesn't mean it's okay for the original manufacturer to intentionally sabotage functional clones. After all, clones are completely legal absent the trademark issues, as I have already explained. FTDI's legal remedy here is to go after distributors etc. of the chips and products that are misrepresenting their brand. Going after end users in the way that they did is both stupid and probably illegal.You've also completely neglected to address several other important points here, like whether a given device is infringing at all - a complex device of which the FTDI IC is only a small component is probably not infringing even if the IC itself is, or the fact that the driver can't detect trademark infringement.It gets really tiresome arguing about IP issues online because so many people are confidently incorrect about the 3 kinds of protected IP and the differences in how each is protected. I don't know why people get so dug in with their incorrect assumptions of how it works either, when they clearly have very little understanding of the actual law.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 06:30:46 pm
content: Quote from: ve7xen on June 06, 2022, 06:18:23 pmYou're again funnily twisting reality to try and make your point.A "clone" using the brand of the original manufacturer is the definition of a counterfeit. It's not just a clone with trademark issues.You've somehow invented a legal frame in which counterfeiting doesn't exist, and in which counterfeits are merely clones with maybe trademark infringement, no big deal right? Nice.Sure if the device doesn't try to pass as genuine in any way and would just be a clone, no problem, you'd be right. I don't think that was the case for the FTDI counterfeits, but please show me some of those "clones" that were looking different enough from FTDI parts that they could not be called counterfeits. I haven't seen them, but who knows.Counterfeited ICs have become a very serious issue anyway and the shortage is just making things worse. There is no situation in my book where counterfeiting is ever acceptable. Just cloning is a different story altogether. But other peoples' books may read differently. As long as you don't get caught, for many, ethics is kind of elastic.Now to be completely fair - from FTDI drivers' POV, there may not have been a way to distinguish mere clones from counterfeits (even though the absolute majority of such devices in circulation were indeed counterfeits), so that would be the point against their action. But then, reality strikes again, and please show us significant cases of such devices that were only clones but NOT counterfeits and that were rendered unusable by FTDI's drivers. I don't know of any such case, and while that may have existed in theory, that's likely just theory.

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 06:35:37 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on June 06, 2022, 10:59:33 amI would like to take a poll. This forum is ostensibly inhabited by professional electronics engineers -- in other words, people whose job it is to design electronic products for sale either to businesses or to the general public.The poll: what would you do if you discovered your products were being cloned and sold to unwary customers as if they were your product?

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 06:36:17 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 06, 2022, 06:30:46 pmThe trademark misuse makes it a counterfeit, not a clone. If it's a functional clone without the trademark infringement, it's completely legal (modulo parallel patent issues, which don't seem to be in play here), and we see this pretty often, for a modern example see the GD32F103 - both counterfeit (ST marked) and completely legal (GD marked) clones of ST's design exist. Do unmarked FTDI clones exist? I'm not sure of course, but I can almost guarantee that at least one product has shipped with the markings ground off or the ICs unmarked. The point is you can't distinguish between a functional clone (legal) and a counterfeit (illegal) from the driver.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 07:47:02 pm
content: Hello sir,Quote from: ve7xen on June 06, 2022, 06:18:23 pmI think we are discussing semantics here. I never suggested IP was mentioned in the Theft Act.From thatCPS linkI gave, to convict someone of a trademark violation"it is also necessary for the prosecutor to prove that the person conducted the activities "… with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another.""- where gain and loss are stated to be defined in the Theft Act 1968. So, without the Theft Act there could be no conviction of trademark infringement. Ergo, it is theft, in legal terms and in common language terms. IANAL so perhaps my legal understanding is rudimentary, but I'm afraid, rightly or wrongly, you're not going to convince me that IP infringement is not theft. So we should perhaps agree to disagree and leave it at that.Edit:Perhaps you are trying to point out that the conviction of a trademark violation would not be under the Theft Act 1968, in which case I agree. The conviction would be under the Trade Marks Act 1994, but this conviction requires loss/gain to be proven (i.e. a theft) as defined by the Theft Act. So a proven trademark violation conviction includes an act of theft. It is theft./EditEdit2:Wait, I think I got it now...A trade mark infringement causes the rights holder to suffer a monetary loss, where 'loss' is defined within the Theft Act. But the Theft Act itself is not contravened, because the loss/gain transfer is not a direct transfer of monies from one party to the other. Thus, it is fraud, not a direct theft. So, a conviction under the Trade Mark Act infers guilt of fraud, and not of theft. Have I got that right? My overly broad interpretation of theft and the definition of loss/gain being within the Theft Act got me confused.QuoteThe IP infringement was intended to deprive the rights holder of revenue. Permanently, they weren't intending to return it, were they? So I don't see how that supports your argument. Perhaps 'property' doesn't technically include monies, IDK./Edit2QuoteMy argument is that the copy protection mechanism is the _custom_ silicon itself and functionality thereof. That took investment to overcome and re-implement, as it would for any hardware USB dongle. How high is the bar for establishing a protection mechanism anyway? It's not a requirement to include encryption, is it? Anyhow, while the trademark infringement is an undisputed fact, I'm sure lawyers would love to argue over a copyright infringement for a few days. Legal cases have been won and lost on such dubious points and technicalities.QuoteYes. Whenever you pass through a WIPO customs point, however long the individual has owned the goods, they are subject to confiscation.QuoteGiving someone a gift of a counterfeit product is a non-commercial activity, and that is also illegal. i.e. transfer of ownership not permitted.Owning is not illegal. But if you break these rules, it is still subject to forfeiture, if you are caught.QuoteAgreed. But, disty's are mostly in China so not much hope of legal recourse there.It's an interesting and novel approach, and they seem to have gotten away with it in a legal sense.QuoteHmm, call me skeptical.That would suggest you can legally use counterfeit ICs as long as you make the system complex enough.QuoteBecause stubborn. And its much much cheaper to hangout here than in TEA thread.

author: SpacedCowboy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 10:45:37 pm
content: Quote from: Bassman59 on June 06, 2022, 06:35:37 pmIf I could detect my own devices from the counterfeit ones (which I believe was the case for FTDI, "clones" are rarely perfect), and I'd written software to enable those devices, I'd make sure my driver only worked with my own devices.What I wouldn't do is vandalize anything I detected as not my own.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 10:51:38 pm
content: Quote from: SpacedCowboy on June 06, 2022, 10:45:37 pmThe the problem is that you'll need to be 100% sure that the detection works all the time. A design that has been developed with such a feature in mind will certainly help. IMHO the best way is to come up with a new & improved device (or firmware updates that won't work on a clone).You also need to consider whether the buyers of the 'clones' are willing to pay the full price. If that turns out to be not a lot, then your monetary loss due to the clones is not high so how much R&D time do you want to make your customers pay for that gives them no benefit?

author: SpacedCowboy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 11:05:43 pm
content: The crucial thing here is "do no harm". If it turns out that I've screwed up, and my devices are sometimes not detected (and let's be clear, something like this ought to go through every QA test you can think of, and then again, backwards), then all I need to do to fix the issue in this absolute worst-case scenario is bump the driver again.I think people are a lot more forgiving of "there was a bug in our driver" than "oh, sorry, we bricked*your hardware"And yeah, later firmware ought to do a challenge/response or something that's a lot harder to falsify...*: For a sufficiently flexible definition of "bricked".

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 11:09:07 pm
content: Quote from: SpacedCowboy on June 06, 2022, 11:05:43 pmYes, but keep in mind that your customers are paying for the R&D you put into copy-protection. I've seen devices that got rather expensive just because of the copy protection measures where the creators likely could have made more money by just putting the product on the market for 1/3rd of the price.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2022, 11:28:53 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 06, 2022, 05:57:56 pmFood for thought: consider all those various displays, mall kiosks, airport announcing screens, etc. you've likely seen with prominent BSoDs draped across them. Well, those are all custom hardware, right? Well, one would hope, they're just VGA/DVI/HDMI compatible and that's that, enumerates as generic display, no big deal; but that's hard, too (e.g. needs HDMI decoder?). Maybe it's easier to build those with custom hardware. Maybe it's just a memory mapped framebuffer, super easy, but it still needs driver support. And software is always buggy, most especially the low quantity stuff, like for supporting a few thousand displays like this. Or, even if they aren't using custom adapter hardware, the computers may be SBCs with poorly supported peripherals or such, and something else onboard is making it unstable.So yeah, it reflects poorly on MS, everyone gets to see their most famous error screen and have a laugh ha ha. Well, to their credit, consider the sheer diversity of hardware they've supported over the decades, it's a testament to their core kernel team, their testing and support, that so many things Just Work(TM) as well as they do.Even just among consumer equipment, the worst I've used was an, I think, ATI Radeon 4250HD or something like that; onboard graphics, lackluster performance anyway, as onboard graphics are wont to be. But the most jarring thing was, on exit from a full-screen 3D application, the desktop repaints, alright fine, not enough framebuffer to hold onto that, and then it's normal... for about 15 seconds, then suddenly BLACK, big redraw, CPU chugging, and only then it's done and back to normal. Almost like they didn't have a solution to ship, fuck it, reboot the whole goddamned driver/adapter to get it back to a clean [2D desktop] state. I don't think I had BSoDs on that one, but who knows, maybe they made it do that to avoid worse. Can't say I've had anything else do that, at least not in over a decade, and that was worth a few bucks. (I do recall some early-ish graphics cards that, I don't remember what the circumstance was, maybe the application crashing, maybe tabbing out, maybe closing normally, maybe resizing the desktop, I don't know -- but under some circumstances I might return to desktop and a bunch of past framebuffer contents would show up around the edges, before the desktop finished repainting. Sometimes including frames of videos I'd watcher earlier, with corrupted colors, or noisy or blocky-garbled appearance. Which would be interesting, but was also a bit chilling, considering what kinds of videos a teenaged boy might've been watching on the internet...)Which goes to show you, even within one corporation, you shouldn't expect consistency -- demand it, certainly, but don't be surprised when you don't get it. Another example, I strongly sense the same about the quality of TI products.Tim

author: peter-h
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2022, 12:12:46 pm
content: I haven't read the whole thread but basically FTDI established themselves as the only vendor with any support, and a quality product, years back before they vanished from the West and became just a Taiwanese outfit. They had a place in Scotland where their support was and it was really good.At the time, Prolific were completely useless and AFAICT they still are, but are clearly much cheaper than FTDI; probably 1/5 of the price in volume. I make a number of products with the FT232 and they just work everywhere and keep working.Unfortunately FTDI have jumped on the same profiteering bandwagon as most others and have stopped shipping unless you pay (via the UK disti, this is) a hefty 30% uplift. So obviously I am hoping that this shortage bubble explodes ASAP and we have a really deep bloodbath, just like always happened after a bubble in this crazy business (74HC245, going from 25p to £2.50 and back to 25p).

author: ozcar
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2022, 07:19:17 pm
content: Quote from: peter-h on June 07, 2022, 12:12:46 pmI thought FTDI still had a presence in sunny Glasgow?I haven't read the whole thread either, but the starting point appears to be that Prolific have (recently??) decided to follow FTDI's lead. Perhaps Prolific did of late improve their ability to detect fakes, and perhaps also altered somewhat how the driver responds, but this thread, from way before the FTDIgate time suggests Prolific may have been the pioneers:https://eevblog.com/forum/reviews/note-how-to-not-get-scammed-with-prolific-(pl2303)-usb-serial-adapters/.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2022, 08:04:48 pm
content: Quote from: ozcar on June 07, 2022, 07:19:17 pmafair Prolific did something so the numerous fakes stopped working, so buying Prolific was like a lottery ticket and everyone started buying FTDI because they always "just worked". Then FTDI decided that, just like Prolific, making all your potential costumers doubt if something with FTDI written on it would actually work (real or fake, how can you be sure), would be a great idea

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2022, 08:09:59 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on June 06, 2022, 07:47:02 pmIt's not necessarily fraud either. I suppose it could be in very specific circumstances, and it's much closer than calling it theft, but trademark - and patent, and copyright - are separate things for a reason: because they are not well covered by other laws, or we'd have just used those from the start. What makes a theft a theft is that you are depriving the original owner of their asset / property, which is never the case in an IP infringement, and especially not in the case of trademark.QuoteSpeculation about potential lost revenue is not remotely the same thing as depriving someone of their concrete asset or property. Of course property includes money, but we're not talking about money, we're talking about potential revenues. It's hard to estimate how much potential revenue may have been lost, if any - it's not necessarily zero-sum here. Trademark infringement also doesn't depend on revenue; it's still an infringement whether there's a projected loss of revenue or not. Hell, it could be an infringement even if there's a gain as a result. What matters is that there is intent to create a gain for yourself or harm another, whether or not you achieved it, and whether or not your gain represents a corresponding loss to the trademark holder. For example I'm pretty sure Disney doesn't lose any revenue when daycares paint their characters in the classrooms, but they're entitled to go after them anyway since they are gaining from the infringement.QuoteBasically it needs to be intended specifically to be a copy protection, and 'effective', which is far too weak a requirement in my opinion, but even that weak requirement is not met here. It's very clear that the FTDI chip is not a copy protection mechanism for the driver - the driver is fundamentally useless without it, and no functionality in the chip is intended to protect the copyright of the driver. You're right that the lawyers would probably love to fight this, and at least in the US where IP protection judgments have gotten pretty incredulously stupid in the past decade, it's still going to be a steep uphill battle and is clearly outside the intent of the law.QuoteYes, that's the point. Again, the point of trademark is to protect consumers from being confused or deceived about the product. If I'm buying a 3D printer or whatever, I'm not being deceived by the markings on the cloned FTDI IC that is buried inside the printer, and no claims about its authenticity or brand are made. That trademark was infringed by the IC manufacturer, and they are the ones culpable, not the 3D printer manufacturer that included an infringing product as a small element of the product. I believe you'd have to show that Prusa or whoever's complete product itself was infringing, which would be difficult. At least that is my interpretation, there is definitely a grey area here, but it doesn't seem reasonable and proportionate that an arbitrarily complex product that doesn't even use the protected mark in a meaningful way, where the 'infringement' is on a $0.50 component of a $2000 system makes the whole thing infringing and subject to seizure and sanction. Especially given the intent of the law.QuoteAgreed!

author: Bicurico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2022, 08:39:37 pm
content: Some years ago, in the satellite TV community (= the ones that like to open PayTV without a subscription), the "Dreambox" brand was very popular.This was the brand that further developed the Enigma/Enigma2 firmware, basically a Linux based platform for TV receivers, which allowed the installation of plugins and scripts.Because Enigma/Enigma2 were open source, a huge community developed with alternative firmware distributions and, soon enough, other competing receiver manufacturer offered their own Enigma/Enigma2 based receivers. The trademark for "Enigma2" ended up being patented/registered by Dream Multimedia (the manufacturer of the Dreambox models). Competitors had to refer to E2 instead of Enigma2.So far, all OK and legal.But shortly, when Dream Multi Media launched their DM500S receiver, chinese clones started to appear: they looked 100% the same (even with the logo) and naturally used the same FW.The same happend for some other good enough E2 receivers.This led Dream Multimedia to develop new models of their receiver with dongles (!). The bootloader would verify the presence of the dongle and if it was not present, it would wipe the flash. This was a huge issue, because many people ended up with having a brick in their living room, after updating the FW. Many did not even understand they had a clone.Then newer clones appeared with a hacked dongle!And from there on, it was a cat and mouse game.Why am I writing this? Because this discussion reminded me of it and to leave the note that it is really difficult to protect against clones. If you think you can build a clever routine that can distinguish a clone from the original, think again and don't underestimate the people behind clones. They will clone the protection mechanism, too.Regarding Prolific: I have some devices that use cloned IC's. All I have to do is to install an old driver.But yes, it sucks sitting on a device 100x more expensive than the Prolific IC and not being able to use it until an old driver is found and Windows convinced to accept the unsigned driver.Cheers,Vitor

author: peter-h
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2022, 08:55:32 am
content: FTDI was the only product which had an external EEPROM for storing unique IDs, so you could make a USB VCP product which could be plugged into any USB port on a given PC (even on a hub) and it always came up on the same COM port number. Now, FTDI have a version which has an internal EEPROM instead.Whereas Prolific (PL2303) would be a different COM port each time which was a total nightmare for customer support, plus a hassle for any system which you set up and hoped it would just keep working. Prolific were just the typical chinese company, sell them cheap and to hell with support.FTDI may still have a tech office in Scotland but there is no "power" there.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2022, 02:12:53 pm
content: The PL2303's EEPROM stores VID and PID, but no serial number. If you attach multiple PL2303s with the same VID/PID pair the OS can't assign fixed ports because all devices look the same. As a manufacturer/vendor you could (should?) program your own VID/PID pair and provide an adapted driver to mitigate this issue. However, If the user connects two or more of your devices the fun starts again. Most of the vendors using a PL2303 go for the cheap solution, i.e. Prolific's VID/PID pair and no dedicated driver.PS: Some OSs support tying serial ports to adapters based on the USB port.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2022, 02:25:27 pm
content: From this page:https://ftdichip.com/careers/it looks like FTDI moved from the UK to Singapore...

author: peter-h
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2022, 04:28:54 pm
content: QuoteThat is useless, since one wants to use either FTDI's driver or, in "modern" times, the one which win7+ downloads automatically.QuoteMost likely, some years ago, and focusing on high volume OEMs. There is a UK disti but they have very little power.It's a very unsatisfactory situation, but then everything is right now, and when the bubble bursts and the bloodbath starts, they will be all over us to sell us chips... same old story.Best we can do is design-out all the really nasty firms (start with Maxim) and keep a lot of stock of crucial parts.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2022, 07:25:54 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on June 08, 2022, 02:25:27 pmThat sucks.treez would probably have a word or two to say about this, although he tends to focus on power supplies.But we can wonder if there's any hope of still having any semiconductor industry in Europe by the next decade.The big "switch" will be when STM gets bought by some asian company.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2022, 07:43:42 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 08, 2022, 07:25:54 pmBesides ST there is also NXP and Infineon.

author: boyddotee
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2022, 04:13:40 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on June 06, 2022, 05:32:33 pmIt's near impossible these day on Windows at least to install a not correctly signed driver, certainly not something you could expect a end user to do.It requires restarting windows into a special developer mode in recent version of win 10. Signing a driver is also relatively expensive which creates the hurdle for the small.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2022, 06:39:52 pm
content: Quote from: boyddotee on June 10, 2022, 04:13:40 pmYeah.Note that in Windows, using an existing class such as HID, CDC, ... not requiring a custom driver doesn't solve the issue completely.There's still an annoying Windows behavior that comes from its legacy: the device name in the "device manager" comes from the .INF file and not from the strings in the USB descriptors. So if you don't provide a custom .INF file for your device, you'll get a generic name in the device manager, which makes identifying your device for users much harder (and thus makes tech support much harder too.)Now devices in Windows are listed in various ways depending on the version with some inconsistency. For instance, in Win 7, in the "devices and printers" window, USB devices are identified from the USB descriptors... so that's good. But in the "device manager", devices are identified from the info found in .INF files. Nice.Oh and, if you provide a custom .INF file for your device, even if it links your device to base generic driver, then it will make the whole thing not signed IIRC.