[DrAwesome]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this isn't bricking the device. The driver is refusing to allow it to work, sure, but it doesn't damage the chip itself in any way. The reason the FTDI incident back in 2014 blew up was because the FTDI driver didn't just refuse to work - it reprogrammed the USB PID on counterfeit/cloned chips to 0, which actually prevented them from working on any host (looking back at articles from that time, it looks like you could fix it by downloading the FT32 config tool from FTDI, but the important point is that the driver was effectively damaging the chips).

I really don't see the issue with drivers developed by a hardware company to support their hardware refusing to work with other hardware. I recognize that it creates problems for innocent end users when they do it, but Prolific just doesn't have any obligations to the end-users of other manufacturers' chips. Refusing to operate (rather than reprogramming the chips like FTDI's solution did) seems like a completely reasonable path to me.

[xupybd]

The problem is that you have no way of knowing that you are buying a fake device. If you run the risk of buying a fake and having it not work then why buy that brand? Buy one that will just work and no risk of bricked fakes. Prolific are harming their brand by doing this.

I will now be on alert to avoid their products. Not because I take moral issue with them not allowing me to use fakes, but because I risk getting a non-functional device.

[kalleboo]

> The problem is that you have no way of knowing that you are buying a fake device

Well there wasn't before, but now when the driver alerts you to this fact people can leave 1-star reviews on these devices

[manicdee]

Yet if Prolific support the fakes, they end up wasting time and money trying to provide tech support to people experiencing issues with fakes, or having hostile customers trying to get refunds on fakes from Prolific.

The better option is to find ways to ensure you are buying legitimate items, such as avoiding Amazon, eBay, AliBaba, etc.

[moolcool]

> The driver is refusing to allow it to work, sure, but it doesn't damage the chip itself in any way

That's kind of immaterial, isn't it? Like most end users won't know how to roll back a driver in the device manager, and without that knowledge their device is as useful to them as one which was actually bricked.

[josephcsible]

> Prolific just doesn't have any obligations to the end-users of other manufacturers' chips

To me, this would excuse a change that was actually somehow beneficial for their own chips and just happened to break clones, but it doesn't excuse a change that does nothing for their own chips and breaks clones on purpose.

[manicdee]

It is beneficial for their chips: the driver will work exactly as advertised and tested. The drivers do not break clones on purpose, the drivers simply don’t enable clones to work.

Write your own driver if you want to use the clones. It is not Prolific’s job to support hardware they didn’t design, build and test.

Even more importantly it is not Prolific’s job to support competitors who are not going to respect Prolific’s IP.

[xeyownt]

Whatever it is, it is certainly bad publicity.

As genuine equipment manufacturer, it is better to make sure that equipment that used to work before an update, still does after update is carried on. Reject should only occur when the driver is installed for the first time.