Hacker News Reader

Comment by gsmecher | Hacker News Reader

Oh my - good find, and also, eek.

Analogy: https://datasheet.lcsc.com/lcsc/2302211830_analogysemi-ADX11...

TI: https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/ads1115.pdf

Analogy's datasheet is directly cribbed from TI's (see TI Fig. 7-7 / Analogy Fig. 22½, pg. 18).

This already passes my "run away screaming" threshold for trust, but a decapping would help me understand whether they've stolen the physical design (bad) or just cloned it (bad).

View on HN

"Stealing" the physical design is legal after 10 years in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit_layout_desi...), or 20 years if there's a patent, and that's how we avoided having a single giant company own everything and halt innovation forever in the First and Second Industrial Revolutions. So I would say that stealing the physical design is good.

(I guess it was also important that at the time it was illegal for one company to own another, which was a significant obstacle to the rise of conglomerates like Standard Oil.)

> or just cloned it (bad)

What's wrong with cloning a chip functionality-wise? This is basically how the industry has operated since its infancy, and what gave us jelly bean logic parts and transistors, x86 and the PC revolution, ...

(just talking about the cloning part here, not counterfeit markings or datasheet copyright infringement, or copying mask work)

If it's an open clone that can be reasonably distinguished from software side and from looking at the part and it doesn't violate IP laws other than software patents, no biggie.

Every clone of any sufficiently complex Thing will have subtle quirks and edge cases compared to the original and as long as I can work around them for only that specific clone model, that's easy.

But clones that have no way of determining if the part is a clone? That's bad to even exist because unscrupulous actors will go and repackage "legitimate clone" chips into faked originals if the price difference is big enough.

that can be reasonably distinguished from software side

That defeats the point of it being a clone. 100% the same is the goal.

There's nothing wrong with an open clone when everybody is acting in good faith. (In fact, "good faith" does not even necessarily mean "according to the letter of the law in $jurisdiction". Sometimes the law is an ass.)

However, there's nothing more toxic to an OEM than a vendor relationship founded on dishonesty. I know I shouldn't trust them, they know it too, and even if it seems advantageous at first I shouldn't be surprised when they turn on me.

Since these parts are being sold as genuine TI parts, I don't care whether the clone is physically faithful or just functionally faithful - I should treat it like it's poisonous.

Apparently you haven't seen what the datasheets of 7805 regulators look like; or to use a far more complex example, LCD controllers. I do find it amusing that AnalogySemi's datasheet uses basically the same fonts as Linear Technology's, but copy-paste is the norm in the industry, and many companies will require that parts in their design always have a second-source manufacturer, if not more.

I've seen some datasheets which were copy/pasted to the extent that some of the example schematics still used the name of the original part.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com