No. Because the device is not really "bricked". All the driver update does is change the Hardware PID that identifies what it is. The device still works, the drivers just no longer identify it as valid for that driver. Most if not all other consumer hardware does not have changeable PIDs.
They do check. They don't have the personnel and resources to test every possible hardware configuration. And how would they test the fakes?
Add in the fact that the newer drivers for the real chip were already breaking the fake ones without changing the hardware PID of the fakes. All that changing the Hardware PID of the fake chip does is let the FTDI's support staff see that the non functional chip is a fake.
Does it suck? Yes. Could FTDI have done something else to identify the fakes? Maybe. But these chips are buggy as hell even when they were semi-functional with FTDI's drivers (they were not a counterfeit with the exact design of the original, but a cheap hack pretending to be something that it is not). This will hopefully stop shoddy manufacturers from using the fake chips just to shave a couple of cents off of manufacturing costs.
It's not Microsoft's fault. They are merely offering the drivers that were provided by the device manufacturer on the Windows Update service (they do this for all manufacturers). This is a service that makes Windows much easier to configure than Linux (try finding some non standard driver in Linux). Microsoft can't possibly test every possible piece of legitimate hardware--let alone the counterfeits. So how can they be at fault?
Because this dumb guy is getting a lot of press saying he's something he's not. Some other idiot (in the government or the military or some corporation) will listen to this idiot and fuck something royally up. This isn't some fool bragging about how he's a Navy Seal on some unknown forum. He's trying to get people to give him money by claiming to be something he's not, and able to do things that he can't.
Hopefully by writing about his lies it will filter up to the "mainstream media" that keep letting him spout his nonsense without fact checking.
Would you let a person claiming to be a top medical expert keep spouting bull-crap if you knew he's never been to a doctor's office let alone med school?
#1) This is a grey area. I don't think there's really been any cases of who owns the copyright on a work made by a non-person.
#2) In all these cases, the copyright would belong to the one who started the camera (or the one who directed it to be started in a work for hire situation).
No, taking a photo of something is not stealing from the public domain. Anyone else can still go out to take and publish all the monkey pictures they want. The copyright only exists for that particular photo and all its derivative works.
Yes,the creativity is intrinsic to the fixed expression. But that has nothing to do with the copyright--which applies from the moment that the work is fixed (pressing the shutter button--no creativity there). The creativity comes before the work is fixed. With a photo, lighting, setting, framing and camera settings--those are not copyrightable (but I guess you can get a patent for them now) and can be used by another to take a functionally identical picture with a separate copyright. The copyright is not on the creativity--but on the fixed expression (the actual photo taken).
The copyright goes to the person that set up the camera, or the one that paid for it to be done (work for hire). They set up the camera to take the picture (pushed the shutter button), no matter how delayed.
Nope, with photos the copyright goes to the person who pressed the shutter button. The amount of creativity used to take the photo is irrelevant--whoever pressed the shutter button owns the copyright. Of course, this case is in a grey area because the monkey who pressed the button is not a person who can own a copyright.
There's a big problem with that whole "setting up the environment" argument--too many entities can make that claim on any specific work. I wouldn't want Canon claiming copyright on photos taken with their cameras, or Adobe because their software was used to edit the final image.