Sanding IC part numbers (rant)

[E. Rosten]

Sorry, but I have to have a rant about the practice of sanding part
numbers from ICs.

NB, if anyone here thinks it is a good idea, you should get yourself
some re-edcation.

I bought one of those X-Arcade arcade joysticks from a company known as
X Gaming. On the whole, I've been very pleased with the product.
However, after what some may call excessive use, the screws on one of
the joysticks worked loose, and the motion of the package caused some of
the crimped joints around the joystick to fail (as it transpired). OK,
the think has a long wrranty (about 7 years or something), but I didn't
want to wait however many days (one would be too many to have it
fixed, so I opened it up and imagine my rage when I found that the ICs
have the part numbers sanded off.

What kind of an idiot thinks that is a good idea. I bought their product
in good faith. Secondly, the important part of the product is the arcade
joystick and arcade buttons, not the way it interfaces with the computer
(through the keyboard port). So why in hells name did they need to sand
the part numbers off the chip?! To stop a competitor figuring out how to
make a computer keyboard even though the specs have been freely
avaliable for the last 25 years? Why does anyone feel the need to do this?

The ICs are one 8 pin one, one 14 pin one (I'd put money on them being a
555 and a 74?xx) and one biggish one.

It would have made my life a lot easier if I could ahve just looked up
the IC data sheet, figure out what was going where and then start my
search. As it was, it turned out to be the crimp joints, but being able
to make sense of what does what would have made my life much easier.

OK, so in this case, it turned out not to matter too much. But in 6
years time, when the next fault occurs and my warranty is gone, then
what? I guess I'll have to make my own keyboard controller instead of
fix theirs...

I'd like to mention that apart from indulging in the rather abhorrent
practice of sanding part numbers, I'm otherwise extremely pleased with
the product. But it's amazing how much you can piss off otherwise very
happy customers.


-Ed

--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (er258)(@)(eng.cam)(.ac.uk)

/d{def}def/f{/Times findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5/m
{moveto}d -1 r 230 350 m 0 1 179{1 index show 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}
for /s 15 d f pop 240 420 m 0 1 3 { 4 2 1 r sub -1 r show } for showpage

 

[Ryan Wheeler]

E. Rosten wrote:

Sorry, but I have to have a rant about the practice of sanding part
numbers from ICs.

NB, if anyone here thinks it is a good idea, you should get yourself
some re-edcation.

I bought one of those X-Arcade arcade joysticks from a company known
as X Gaming. On the whole, I've been very pleased with the product.
However, after what some may call excessive use, the screws on one of
the joysticks worked loose, and the motion of the package caused some
of the crimped joints around the joystick to fail (as it transpired).
OK, the think has a long wrranty (about 7 years or something), but I
didn't want to wait however many days (one would be too many to
have it fixed, so I opened it up and imagine my rage when I found
that the ICs have the part numbers sanded off.

What kind of an idiot thinks that is a good idea. I bought their
product in good faith. Secondly, the important part of the product is
the arcade joystick and arcade buttons, not the way it interfaces
with the computer (through the keyboard port). So why in hells name
did they need to sand the part numbers off the chip?! To stop a
competitor figuring out how to make a computer keyboard even though
the specs have been freely avaliable for the last 25 years? Why does
anyone feel the need to do this?

The ICs are one 8 pin one, one 14 pin one (I'd put money on them
being a 555 and a 74?xx) and one biggish one.

It would have made my life a lot easier if I could ahve just looked
up the IC data sheet, figure out what was going where and then start
my search. As it was, it turned out to be the crimp joints, but being
able to make sense of what does what would have made my life much
easier.

OK, so in this case, it turned out not to matter too much. But in 6
years time, when the next fault occurs and my warranty is gone, then
what? I guess I'll have to make my own keyboard controller instead of
fix theirs...

I'd like to mention that apart from indulging in the rather abhorrent
practice of sanding part numbers, I'm otherwise extremely pleased
with the product. But it's amazing how much you can piss off
otherwise very happy customers.


-Ed

if this arcade joystick is so good would the manufacturer want
somebody to copy this joystick? thats why he makes the part number
unreadable.
Maybe you can sign a non disclosure agrement and they will send you
the specs.

 

[Michael Black]

"Ryan Wheeler" (mojo@nospam_netscape.com) writes:

E. Rosten wrote:

Sorry, but I have to have a rant about the practice of sanding part
numbers from ICs.

NB, if anyone here thinks it is a good idea, you should get yourself
some re-edcation.

I bought one of those X-Arcade arcade joysticks from a company known
as X Gaming. On the whole, I've been very pleased with the product.
However, after what some may call excessive use, the screws on one of
the joysticks worked loose, and the motion of the package caused some
of the crimped joints around the joystick to fail (as it transpired).
OK, the think has a long wrranty (about 7 years or something), but I
didn't want to wait however many days (one would be too many to
have it fixed, so I opened it up and imagine my rage when I found
that the ICs have the part numbers sanded off.

What kind of an idiot thinks that is a good idea. I bought their
product in good faith. Secondly, the important part of the product is
the arcade joystick and arcade buttons, not the way it interfaces
with the computer (through the keyboard port). So why in hells name
did they need to sand the part numbers off the chip?! To stop a
competitor figuring out how to make a computer keyboard even though
the specs have been freely avaliable for the last 25 years? Why does
anyone feel the need to do this?

The ICs are one 8 pin one, one 14 pin one (I'd put money on them
being a 555 and a 74?xx) and one biggish one.

It would have made my life a lot easier if I could ahve just looked
up the IC data sheet, figure out what was going where and then start
my search. As it was, it turned out to be the crimp joints, but being
able to make sense of what does what would have made my life much
easier.

OK, so in this case, it turned out not to matter too much. But in 6
years time, when the next fault occurs and my warranty is gone, then
what? I guess I'll have to make my own keyboard controller instead of
fix theirs...

I'd like to mention that apart from indulging in the rather abhorrent
practice of sanding part numbers, I'm otherwise extremely pleased
with the product. But it's amazing how much you can piss off
otherwise very happy customers.


-Ed

if this arcade joystick is so good would the manufacturer want
somebody to copy this joystick? thats why he makes the part number
unreadable.
Maybe you can sign a non disclosure agrement and they will send you
the specs.

While I agree that the active circuitry (and hence the interface to the
keyboard port) may be the unique thing about this joystick, one of
the things clear over the years is that sanding (and other schemes
to prevent copying) tends to hurt the consumer more than the company.

If this unit is so unique, then it's well worth my time if I was
a company wanting to copy it, to do the work to figure out what was
going on. This is likely harder with a microcontroller onboard, but
spending the time results in the income from the bootleg copies.

But, if I as a consumer gets something that I can't read the devices,
then the work I do to uncover what's in there, so I can do replacement
or fix something that doesn't work as I like it, can only apply to
my personal use. The cost goes way up then, and I may not bother then.
That means the piece gets junked when it comes to repair time.

I once knew someone who was making some small kits for various hobby
activities, selling them mail order. Some of them did have the IC
numbers sanded off. But, at least one of them was straight out of
an application book. That's a rather odd situation. But, realistically
it also meant that one just had to do a bit of research to uncover
what device it was. At best, it only slowed down the imagined copycatters.

Michael

 

[E. Rosten]

Ryan Wheeler wrote:

if this arcade joystick is so good would the manufacturer want
somebody to copy this joystick? thats why he makes the part number
unreadable.

The good bit about the joystick are the joysticks, the microswitches,
the buttons and the very sturdy box. That's what you're paying for in
this joystick. The electronic part is trivial and does absoloutely
nothing unusual: all the inputs to it are are binary, from a bunch of
microswitches, and these are read out and sent along the keyboard
interface. I could hack that together with a PIC in a small amount of
time. The circuit is by far the easiest bit to copy. Now, designing the
joysticks that can take a real hammering and are guarnteed for 7 years
is very difficult. That's what I'm paying for.

Maybe you can sign a non disclosure agrement and they will send you
the specs.

My point is, why hide the only unremarkable part of the device?

-Ed



--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (er258)(@)(eng.cam)(.ac.uk)

/d{def}def/f{/Times findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5/m
{moveto}d -1 r 230 350 m 0 1 179{1 index show 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}
for /s 15 d f pop 240 420 m 0 1 3 { 4 2 1 r sub -1 r show } for showpage

 

[Jfet]

"E. Rosten" <look@my.sig> wrote in message news:4118F0D8.8090703@my.sig...

Ryan Wheeler wrote:

if this arcade joystick is so good would the manufacturer want
somebody to copy this joystick? thats why he makes the part number
unreadable.

I am a designer, and I am manufacturing a small instrument that uses readily available ICs
off the shelf that make my unit function.

Yes, the PN#s are sanded...... why?? For the exact reason that even IF you have a patent,
some Chinese or other manufacturing companies located elsewhere may overlook this and copy
your equipment for a customer....... This has happened to several companies I deal with.

So even the Chinese now sand their ICs........ making it harder for other Chinese
companies to copy their copied stuff...

Yes, it makes servicing the item MUCH more difficult...... but usually the manual says "no
user servicable parts inside". This is the standard disclosure that allows manufacturers
or distributors to be free and clear of the consumer regarding consumer attempted repairs.

I begged a distributor to send me a schematic on an amplifier...... it was missing
components (removed by someone "attempting" to repair it, then it was given to me to
fix!), they would not release the information, EVEN if I wanted to purchase the
schematics.... Finally, someone there sent me the schematics (the technician there gave
me the wrong pn#s, luckily I never listened to him, the schematics were the ONLY way to
repair it).

Anyhow, point is......... most equipment doesn't have sanded IC identification, but look
at the place of manufacture..... if in China, I bet it has sanded ICs.... or ICs you can't
get here!! (in North America at least).

I understand your frustration though........ but the people buying my product cannot
service it, the PCB is epoxy encapsulated for weather proofing.

 

[Impmon]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:43:21 GMT, "Ryan Wheeler"
<mojo@nospam_netscape.com> wrote:

if this arcade joystick is so good would the manufacturer want
somebody to copy this joystick? thats why he makes the part number
unreadable.
Maybe you can sign a non disclosure agrement and they will send you
the specs.

Or maybe you could loan a logic probe and logic analyzer and let the
OP check the mystery part. I'd check pin 3 of that 8 pin chip to see
if it has clock signal. If pin 3 is pulsing, the chip is probably 555
timer. If it's not pulsing, it could be an op amp.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net

 

[Charles Schuler]

There are more layers to this. There was at least one company that used
metal shielding and potting to keep others from reverse engineering their
design. The metal shielding was to prevent the use of X-rays.

It's protection of intellectual property and protection of earning power.
There are at leat two rather disharmonious points of view on this subject,
by the way,

 

[Terran Melconian]

In article <4118B4D7.8050908@my.sig>, E. Rosten <look@my.sig> wrote:

avaliable for the last 25 years? Why does anyone feel the need to do this?

For much the same reason that companies won't release source code or
interface specifications, even when a sane market analysis would
indicate this would get them more customers without helping their
competitors.

It's an irrational possessiveness, I think - "mine, mine,
precccccious!". I've felt the temptation myself, whenever I've come up
with any design I thought was particularly clever. I have to keep
reminding myself "your competition has engineers just as smart as you
who will probably come up with a better idea anyway, and it will piss
off your customers and decrease sales." There's a tendency to want to
believe that one's idea, even the only benefit it has over the reference
design is that it saved two resistors, is an untoucable piece of
brilliance which could never possibly be recreated by anyone else who
didn't steal it.