The genuine chips can also be bricked by a very similar command sequence. Are they also defective?

> It is insane to blame the chip marker. They have a reputation to uphold. How can they be expected to continue operating if they not only have to compete with shoddy knockoffs, but basically support them with QA as well?

So refuse to operate with the fake chips. Bricking is unnecessary and deserving of blame.

And as the article points out, a chip that's merely compatible and not counterfeit might also get bricked.

I still get to blame them for designing a puppy kick module!

Edit: Someone made a reply quoting this comment https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/ftdi-gate-2-0... and I already wrote a response so I'm going to put it here:

Linux kernel? Really? The whole point of that is to reuse code as much as possible.

Even for Windows, the point of getting things into Windows Update is to make hardware just work, not to advantage one company over another.

But sure, they can make a reasonable argument toward making the driver incompatible. (If they're also willing to hurt people that tried to buy genuine parts.) It still doesn't justify the bricking.

> slightly higher sales price

Ha! I'm pretty sure it isn't "slightly".

Assuming the bricking of FTDI devices as mentioned in the update isn't "We sent out code to intentionally destroy counterfeits" (i.e. it served no other purpose, wasn't an accident[0])

Did they QA it with counterfeit devices to ensure they were bricked? Or did they just write a new driver for their devices that happened to result in (some/all) counterfeits being bricked?

If it's the latter, then it's not FTDI's fault. It's unreasonable to expect FTDI to QA their drivers against products that aren't theirs.

It is, however, their problem. The last activity that user did was install their driver, and the result is broken stuff. They've just accidentally pissed off a bunch of non-but-possible-future-customers. Taking "fairness" away: a percentage of those affected will assume it was intentional, even if it is very obvious that it is not[0]. And even of those who don't blame FTDI, a percentage of those will feel FTDI owes them something, anyway simply because "big bad corporation"[1]. It's probably in their best interest[2] to detect non-genuine products, inform the user of the potential risks and either prevent the driver from loading or allow the user to accept the risks at their peril if there's a chance the driver can brick the device.

[0] Say, the counterfeit has half the storage/ram of the geniune, and reports it has the same capacity, etc, and a driver update passes the "reality barrier"

[1] Forgetting how often "big bad corporation" is really, really, tiny -- and I have no idea whether or not FTDI is big; it's not relevant.

[2] Albeit, it may not be from a legal perspective...

It wasn't an accident.

And in the case of a counterfeit low level component then they should.

If China wants to compete, then compete. If they are allowed to do this, legitimate companies will suffer and legitimate progress will stagnate. Just release the same chip open source with instructions for using it in this use case. Then when the legitimate company bricks the device, they look like the bad guy stifling competition.

(1) Was the "bricking" intentional[0], as in, did FDTI's driver look for the counterfeit, and upon finding it, issue instructions that would make the device useless, even when used with drivers/configurations that previously worked. It also matters, a little, whether or not this is easily reversed.

(2) Did the FDTI take similarly extreme measures to prevent/stop unauthorized chips that weren't impacting customers/non-customers.

The main thing that would leave me with little sympathy for FDTI[0] is if it was intentional, i.e. the update had no other purpose except to break these devices. Past counterfeit situations come to mind where an update "just happened to brick" counterfeits, but it was due to the counterfeit having some limitation[1] not present in the genuine product.

But that second point is beginning to matter a whole lot more, these days. If FTDI makes it extremely difficult for me to determine what is a real FTDI chip and what is not a real FTDI chip -- or, put another way, if the counterfeits are that difficult to tell from the real thing -- and FTDI decides to breaks the one I thought was real...? I'm going to be swearing. I'm going to be at least as pissed off at the FTDI folks as I am at the outfit responsible for the counterfeit, but FTDI is forever associated in my head with "I can't do what I need to do, now". It's terribly unfair that FTDI has to go through trouble to keep a$$holes from counterfeiting their products, but it is the world we live in.

There are also companies that specialize in this sort of thing for brands/products of all types[2].

At the end of the day, the worst FTDI should do is throw up a large notice "This is not an FTDI device. If it indicates that it is an FTDI device, it is a counterfeit. This driver most likely will not work with your device because it isn't ours." ... here's a link to buy a real one from places that we know won't sell you a counterfeit, etc.

That puts blame where it belongs and even if the driver worked would probably result in me purchasing a replacement from the link, knowing that I'd never have problems in the future.

[0] And hope that some legal issues would come their way

[1] Maybe less RAM/storage than it's supposed to have, and maybe it lies about it, too.

[2] I'm doing work for one, right now... it's an interesting space; I used to think it was as pointless as trying to stop media piracy. There's, surprisingly, a lot of effective (and creative) measures to greatly disrupt/stop these larger scale rip-offs, and a lot that can be done which legitimately protects the customer -- but it's a thousand-pronged attack and you'll never completely eliminate counterfeits, especially for designer brands and such.