[erdo]

You're presenting this as a binary choice:

a) > company should be responsible for ensuring that counterfeit devices work correctly

or

b) > bricking [the counterfeit] device as soon as possible

The answer is almost always c) let it be, if it works fine, if not, not your problem.

Adding any kind of bricking code anywhere, unnecessarily introduces the possibility that it will be unintentionally (or maliciously) activated. Personally I don't have that kind of confidence in software or the people that write it (and I am one of those people)

[robomartin]

Here's another choice:

Go ask the manufacturer of the fake chip to support it with their own driver.

Really. As a hardware manufacturer, if you use a fake version of my product and demand that my software work with it you will hear the loud sound of the phone being hung up forcefully.

The legitimate manufacturer can do anything it wants with the software and their hardware. If someone wants support for fakes they can provide it themselves.

We are talking about encouraging or tolerating theft of intellectual property here. Having been the victim of this I am quite sensitive to the idea.

[indiv0]

Your last comment brings this quote to mind:

> It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

No one is suggesting encouraging or tolerating theft of intellectual property. People are _discouraging_ vigilante justice against IP thieves.

In this instance, because it harms consumers (an innocent party).

You're arguing against strawmen when you claim that people are arguing for FTDI to support these chips. Instead what people are arguing for is for FTDI to not brick them _intentionally_.

[robomartin]

If you really take the time to think it through you should conclude that the forcing FTDI to back off is actually as anti-consumer as you can get. It guarantees long-lasting harm to consumers as counterfeiters now know they can continue to push their devices --of any kind, not just FTDI-- without suffering any consequences.

In other words, when viewed with a long term perspective the mob actually succeeded at protecting the counterfeiters rather than consumers.

That's what people disagreeing with my perspective are missing in this argument.

Show me a legitimate scenario where giving counterfeiters a free pass leads to long term (decades) protections for consumers and there might be something to argue about.

My quote is far better, BTW:

"A man holding a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way" --Mark Twain

Most everyone voicing opinions on this thread has zero experience manufacturing products at scale and perhaps even running a non-trivial company. Nobody has held any of these cats by the tail and yet everyone seems to think they understand market and business dynamics.

As my wife puts it (she is a doctor): A google search isn't a medical degree.