http://www.techrepublic.com/article/ftdi-uses-windows-update-to-disable-devi...
So you buy a USB-to-Serial device at the local big box, or your favorite mail-order firm, get it running some essential device, and a Windows Update zaps the device to uselessness. How would you feel about the vendor? How do you feel about the vendor that (perhaps inadvertently) used a counterfeit chip in their device? How about the OS vendor who shipped a "driver update" that broke the device?
Well, it's punishing the wrong people is the problem. Joe End User is not at fault for buying the thing with a counterfeit chip. Neither is it Microsoft's fault as presumably if they test every one of these little drivers they do it on hardware supplied by, in this case, FTDI.
Really the issue lies with the retail channel.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Alan Bourke alanpbourke@fastmail.fm wrote:
Well, it's punishing the wrong people is the problem.
That was my feeling as well, arguably 'unauthorized damage to a computer' a crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the US.
Someone who loses access to his faxmodem might just be annoyed, but people using these devices in industry could actually encounter some serious damage or losses. I've seen a number of posts in computer forums from folks who are buying new computers and realizing they need an adapter to interface their laboratory or industrial equipment. This is not just an electrical adapter, but needs to have some smarts to act as a 16550/8250 UART, the classic serial controller chip command set.
UART - seriously - can uart chip technology still be under patent? Something seriously wrong with the patent (and copyright) systems.
I'm fairly certain the basic UART protocols are long since public domain, but FTDI's specific implementation of it in their chip may be protected by copyright or patent; I haven't looked into the details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_asynchronous_receiver/transmitter
Invented by Gordon Bell, then of DEC, for the PDP-1. Interesting backstory.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:49 AM, AndyHC jarndice@gmail.com wrote:
UART - seriously - can uart chip technology still be under patent? Something seriously wrong with the patent (and copyright) systems.
[excessive quoting removed by server]
Doesn't M$ get driver specific code checks and updates from the vendors? If so you are kicking the messenger here.
What if chip mfg knows of stolen intellectual property that is coming out of say China? Can they use this update to stop the theft if it is their driver update that is actually being applied? I know the end user gets bitch slapped here. What if that driver company is based in say Ireland and outside of USA rules?
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ted Roche tedroche@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/ftdi-uses-windows-update-to-disable-devi...
So you buy a USB-to-Serial device at the local big box, or your favorite mail-order firm, get it running some essential device, and a Windows Update zaps the device to uselessness. How would you feel about the vendor? How do you feel about the vendor that (perhaps inadvertently) used a counterfeit chip in their device? How about the OS vendor who shipped a "driver update" that broke the device?
-- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com
[excessive quoting removed by server]
-
Alan Bourke -
AndyHC -
Stephen Russell -
Ted Roche