Several of the pin labels have been moved slightly to accomodate larger solder pads
It says arOuino left of the reset switch
The website is misaligned
Though not pictured, the components on the reverse are arranged differently. Possibly a 168/328 difference but I doubt it
The LEDs are all labelled
I've contacted the seller with my concerns but I can't leave anything other than positive feedback for another seven days! Seller is "lejclip", one of the first results for Arduino Nano on eBay and quite a large account.
Thanks for the confirmation. I've emailed Gravitech informing them of who I bought it off, listed the mistakes and asserted that it is sold with their branding and logo.
I was looking on eBay for a replacement nano. I blew the 5V regulator, blowing the micro' and the USB to TTL convertor :0 . The only working things appear to be the LEDs and SMD reset switch. When I was looking for a new one, I found this:
The last time I saw one for sale (albeit a while ago), they were £50! Time for some scepticism. Real or not real, that is the question. Judging by the price, I highly dobut it is real.
Will be more careful about my sources next time because I don't like supporting counterfeiters.
Well to be factual they are not 'counterfeiters'. They are not 'fake' boards. Being open sourced hardware anyone is legally able to recreate the boards from all the original design files and document sources and sell them. What many of the Asian sellers (but not all) are in violations of is trademark infringement. They shouldn't mark their boards with the 'Arduino name' and their ads should clearly state they are clones of the Arduino design. Must like the early days of the PC where copies of the original IBM PC were called IBM compatible. I won't actively support sellers that ignore trademarks laws, but I have and will buy open source hardware from many sources. And I also own a 'real' Arduino board as well.
Will be more careful about my sources next time because I don't like supporting counterfeiters.
Well to be factual they are not 'counterfeiters'
I'd argue if you're putting a better known company's logo and website on your product, you are counterfeiting even if the circuit itself is an open design. Linen is an open design really but if you print dollar graphics on it you're counterfeiting.
Will be more careful about my sources next time because I don't like supporting counterfeiters.
Well to be factual they are not 'counterfeiters'
I'd argue if you're putting a better known company's logo and website on your product, you are counterfeiting even if the circuit itself is an open design. Linen is an open design really but if you print dollar graphics on it you're counterfeiting.
Maybe your right, I'm not a lawyer, are you? I agree that firms that copy the logo and silk screen it and the arduino name and their web site address are in violation of some law and should not be supported. I Just don't paint all firms not Arduino with the same brush.
retrolefty:
Maybe your right, I'm not a lawyer, are you? I agree that firms that copy the logo and silk screen it and the arduino name and their web site address are in violation of some law and should not be supported. I Just don't paint all firms not Arduino with the same brush.
Well, there's counterfeit as a general term, which would certainly encompass copying a trademark. Lots of areas where this sort of stuff happens, e.g. 'forgery', most often associated with signatures, but also applied to artwork. The issues here seem to sufficient for that label here. But I agree that the term "counterfeit arduino" is a bit more difficult, because people will use 'arduino' as general term to refer to any Arduino-compatible clone. But I surely agree with supporting the good vendors, and avoiding the ones who are engaging in bad practices such as this.
