| ??? 11/05/10 21:45 Read: times |
#179500 - maybe ... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Per Westermark said:
Richard Erlacher said:
If I were counterfeiting, I'd put the later part number on it. Already covered. You counterfeit a MAX232. Then notice the customers wants the newer MAX232A. So you changes the marking to MAX232A. and now it's cost us twice as much as we'll get for these cheap little chips. I don't think that would work at all. Then you suddenly ship chips that requires the larger caps but the suckers who buys the chip thinks it's ok with the smaller caps.
Remember that people stealing untested chips or counterfeiting don't care about ethics. It isn't about working well. It's about receiving money. True enough, but it's not about labeling and relabeling. It's about selling 74LS161's in DIL and labeling them as MAX232. We get the same amount of money that way as by relabeling and relabeling and relabeling, but it costs us much less. In this case, however, it's probably a poor circuit design and production, and not a counterfeit part at all. RE |
