The Prolific counterfeit protection is documented as being explicit (and not the result of an accidental incompatibility): Prolific introduced a check in later drivers which requires a specific response the fakes didn't implement.
Thankfully, Prolific chose to simply prevent their drivers from starting with an easy-to-Google code, rather than causing frustrating failures or bricks.
I would assume but honestly don't know that the FTDI random failure code was also intentional. All signs point to intentionality: it appeared in all drivers after a specific version, was accompanied by a change to the EULA indicating that counterfeit chips wouldn't work, and accompanied a lot of messaging from FTDI about avoiding counterfeits.
I suppose someone should break out a disassembler and some USB snooping tools to check for sure.
http://dreamlayers.blogspot.com/2011/10/pl-2303-code-10-erro...
Thankfully, Prolific chose to simply prevent their drivers from starting with an easy-to-Google code, rather than causing frustrating failures or bricks.
I would assume but honestly don't know that the FTDI random failure code was also intentional. All signs point to intentionality: it appeared in all drivers after a specific version, was accompanied by a change to the EULA indicating that counterfeit chips wouldn't work, and accompanied a lot of messaging from FTDI about avoiding counterfeits.
I suppose someone should break out a disassembler and some USB snooping tools to check for sure.