Thanks for posting a constructive fact-based comment.

The question of who the victim is under the FTDI scenario is a really interesting one and likely one that is difficult to resolve with absolute certainty. By this I mean that the consequences of various permutations of potential and actual actions require the benefit of time in order to fully grasp. All we can do is attempt predict outcomes based on experience, knowledge of technology, markets, and, of course, the bias every human being brings to the table.

It is important to note that FTDI devices don't just exist in Windows PC's. They are part of a wide range of products covering an unimaginable range of applications. Defects in clones, therefore, can have an equally large and unknowable range of consequences.

In my case I see two scenarios.

The first is what took place: FTDI was forced to retreat, effectively allowing millions of clones to exist unencumbered and without suffering any financial or legal consequences.

On first inspection forcing FTDI to back off was a pro-consumer stance. The victim, in this line of argument, was the consumer and FTDI --to be dramatic-- was the evil greedy corporate actor wanting it all. How dare they!

It is interesting to note that in this narrative the true criminals, the counterfeiters, never seem to be characterized as the culprit, when in fact, they are. It is easy to demonstrate that the marketplace would be safer without fakes.

This, BTW, applies to any product category, not just chips. Simple example: Fake dog food that could potentially kill your dog because the producers don't really care and have no responsibility or accountability to society, whether it be legal or moral.

And yet, if you analyze this scenario, it is also easy to demonstrate that the actual long term outcome is precisely opposite to the desired outcome (protecting the consumer).

How?

By forcing a retreat at such a high level (FTDI devices are everywhere) the message was clear: Counterfeit chips got away with it, will get away with it. Legal and market forces only care about the here and now and will force legitimate companies to not interfere with counterfeiters.

One might say "Nobody issued a statement even remotely resembling what you just said".

True. Nobody ever does. We are defined by our actions. Society and individuals. In this case society cared more about immediate effects rather than the promotion and maintenance of a healthy ecosystem based on laws and regulations that, among other things, respect intellectual property and ownership rights.

The net result of taking this path is easy to predict: Nobody is ever going to challenge counterfeits because of the way the marketplace --due to shortsightedness-- pushed back on FTDI. Nobody wants to be the focus of a mob.

And so we are now in a situation where consumers, because of this path, will remain the victims for decades to come. Today, they, quite literally, have no idea what's inside the devices they purchase and legitimate hardware manufacturers dare not challenge counterfeits for fear of what the mob might do.

This is, at least to me, a clear case of good intentions not thought through to completion actually causing more damage to consumers in the long term in exchange for a short term benefit. This is why I think it was a terrible decision not to take the pain, support FTDI, repair/replace devices and send a strong message to counterfeiters that they risk going bankrupt rather than the opposite.

Part of that encapsulates the second scenario, one where counterfeiters are not allowed to derive financial gains from their operations. That would have been the true pro-consumer stance. And one that would have delivered a future where consumers could have a reasonable certainty of quality, safety and performance from the products they purchase.

I am not going to lay the entire responsibility of the counterfeit problem on the FTDI event, that would be preposterous. However, this was a very clear cause-and-effect case where one choice was to punish counterfeit makers (and the companies who knowingly use their products to increase profits) and the other was to think consumers were being protected by pounding down the legitimate manufacturer when, in reality, the outcome was precisely the opposite when a long term view is taken.

I can't imagine anyone making an argument proposing the unencumbered proliferation of counterfeits (anything, not just chips) is good for consumers. I think what was done with the FTDI case was extremely shortsighted and damaging.