In the past I have become aware of a Chinese competitor using ST provided code e.g. the PID, VID and device description being ST corporate values. E.g. you get a new product and take a peak at it.
Was surprised today finding an Italian OBDII product that required the Keil MCB2300 Vcom driver! When plugged into the PC usb port the device enumerates as "MCB2300 USB Vcom Port".
Is this a sign that perhaps in the rush to market, design folk are taking short cuts and using the demo boards as a design base and the Keil provided example code (as well as silcon vendors) and just adding their application. or Are the embedded libraries provided being too complicated for folk to have a good understanding and the documentation not being clear enough what they have to do and adjust. ( eg going away and get their PID and VID and changing example descriptors )
Anyone else seen examples of this sort thing !
It's not uncommon.
There's also a lot of lazy and stupid out there too.
en.wikipedia.org/.../Hanlon's_razor
Can be even worse. I remember a situation when one manufacturer used Cypress EZ-USB chips in their product and then registered Cypress' USB VID with Microsoft (signed driver). That lead to all sorts of problems and it took quite a while to sort out.