# Why I hate clones (and so should you)



## carrot (Jun 24, 2010)

First off, I know that a discussion like this can get heated, so I will not name names and I also encourage the rest of you to do the same.

*Why clones are bad for manufacturers:*

1) A manufacturer wishing to best succeed in an ever expanding market must be able to differentiate themselves. Clones are relatively easy to make, and present a "me too" image for the manufacturer. This reduces brand value, because the only thing said product has going for it is its relative inexpensiveness to the original.

B) Every product a manufacturer makes is an opportunity to build a brand, by having a unique style, a unique feature set, and gaining customer loyalty through trust. Offering a clone represents a missed opportunity. It is important to note that forming a strong brand identity allows consumers to develop emotional connections towards a product, its brand and manufacturer, resulting in brand loyalty and "fanboyism." Having repeat loyal customers builds your customer base by word of mouth.

3) Having a unique style makes products instantly recognizable. Consider cars, where modern Cadillacs have a very angled look, new Fords have an impressive chrome grille, and Chryslers are updated retro. This helps to build brand awareness and gives your brand identity. A product with character is far more interesting to consumers than another "me too."

4) A manufacturer can enter a niche without copying the design and styling of another manufacturer's product. Again we will look at cars: Honda introduced the Fit, which is a very popular 5-door hatchback thanks to its lower price and excellent feature set. Compare to Toyota's Yaris, Chevy's Aveo, Kia's Soul, Ford's Fiesta and Nissan's Versa. All fill the same niche while still maintaining a brand identity, and more importantly, differentiating themselves. For instance, the Versa offers more comfort than the Fit, but less room.

Sadly I think those who would best benefit from this section will not read it.

*Why clones are bad for the industry*

A) Clones can only differentiate themselves on price, which has a strong bearing on quality. This forces a race to the bottom, which may initially seem good to consumers, can in the long run be harmful.

Consider the computer industry, where various manufacturers cloned the original IBM workstations, initially improving upon each other but turning PCs into a commodity (a win for Microsoft, which needed to commoditize PCs to popularize their software... but a loss for IBM, Compaq, et al. [more...]). Now many computer manufacturers compete on price which results in the flimsy machines that fail within 3 years. Note that making something into a commodity only benefits those who have built their businesses around that commodity, not the manufacturers of the commodity themselves. The race to the bottom can be attributed to the reason why we have not seen any major shifts in computing paradigms for years, until the uprising of the "Very Personal Computer" ie. current generation smartphones. (To prove that point, I wrote and edited this entire post on my iPhone.)

2) Encouraging clones discourages innovation. If a manufacturer decides to compete on price (and subsequently quality) alone, then the manufacturer must run on artificially lower margins, which means less money for R&D. Less R&D means less innovation. Without R&D we would not have better batteries, good optics, brighter LEDs, IC-based (programmable, smart or regulated) flashlights. On that note, we should consider that buying originals encourages the continuation of innovation and R&D by rewarding innovation.

*Why clones are bad for consumers, and subsequently The Product*

1) Clones indicate a lack of attention to detail. If a manufacturer cannot be bothered to come up with their own feature set and/or aesthetic styling, they also cannot be bothered to build a Product properly. I will not name names but those with a keen eye and sense of engineering who have both Brand A, high end product, and Brand B, high performance low cost product, where Brand B chooses to copy significant parts of Brand A's styling in order to piggyback on Brand A's popularity and brand image, will notice that Brand B has all sorts of interesting engineering shortcomings and a distinct lack of attention to detail. Brand C, high performance low cost product, with its own styling and some investment into R&D, will often tend to have better attention to detail because their brand is riding on their own image, not the coattails of others. Don't think for a moment that this applies to only flashlights. Consider my earlier car analogy and follow up by considering clone manufacturers and their reputation in that industry.

2) Clones do not offer as great a sense of worth. For many of us who are avid product users, whether something is a clone or not has little effect on its pure utilitarian value, aside my previous statement about quality and lack of attention to details. However, for many of us who are also collectors and cherish the products we own for whatever desirable properties they have, we can take pride in having and using an excellent, well-designed, thoughtfully engineered Product. Joy and satisfaction is hard to qualify but I take much greater satisfaction in using an Original Product than a clone. I think many others would also agree.

Now I don't deny that clones have their place in society and in the industry, but I don't believe clones deserve worship and praise either.

I welcome all comments, and encourage further discussion on the subject. Hopefully we can be levelheaded and mindful of others' feelings on this often heated topic.


----------



## F250XLT (Jun 24, 2010)

Excellent, well thought out post :thumbsup:


----------



## Sgt. LED (Jun 24, 2010)

:thumbsup: Well written.
I don't have any I know of but they can be so good now it's getting pretty hard to tell.


----------



## ninemm (Jun 24, 2010)

Thanks for the thought provoking post Carrot. You hit on a lot of important points in there.


----------



## oldways (Jun 24, 2010)

Thank you for that very insightful post with which I agree.


----------



## 65535 (Jun 24, 2010)

Fully agreed, all these SF knockoffs and people asking which knockoff dropin would best fit in my knockoff light.


----------



## csshih (Jun 24, 2010)

another great insightful post. Unfortunately, this is how the way things are going nowadays.... and it seems the vast majority of the public is embracing the idea.


----------



## divine (Jun 24, 2010)

I don't agree with copying designs, if someone takes the easy way out that is wrong.

Most of the topics that appear like this one seem to be anti-competition.

What happens if someone creates a clone that looks similar to another light, has a similar but slightly different UI, but ends up being better in every other way?

Don't ALL flashlights look similar and have similar control?

Wouldn't we all have to agree on what makes one product better than another for there to be any point to this? What if there is someone (and I am sure there is someone) who says a $9 product is better than a $10 product as long as it operates? I guess at that point you could do the "Well, the $10 product will last twice as long as the $9 product so you're paying more to use the $9 product than you are the $10 product." This isn't always true. Sometimes the $9 product is better than the $10 product.


Maybe I hate all companies for producing the same products with little variation.

Food for thought or fuel for flame.


----------



## Lagavulin16 (Jun 24, 2010)

Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## carrot (Jun 24, 2010)

divine said:


> I don't agree with copying designs, if someone takes the easy way out that is wrong.
> 
> Most of the topics that appear like this one seem to be anti-competition.
> 
> ...


I have no problem with competition. I have a problem with lazy manufacturers.

My point is, nobody who outright copies a product bothers to actually make it better. Hypotheticals are great but I've never seen an example where two products looked exactly the same and the "clone" was better. Someone good enough to create a better product will also have the pride to differentiate the product aesthetically.

Flashlights do not look similar at all, yes there is a bezel, body, tail, some have turboheads and some do not, etcetera, but there are many aesthetic additions on every flashlight, every product sold on the market, that do not add significant functionality that can be argued as being completely necessary to the utility of the product. There's a copyright law based around that, actually.

I would never dare to argue the more expensive of two arbitrarily priced products is better based on price alone. Arbitrary is arbitrary. Clearly price is a factor of a product that may make it more palatable or less in one's mind but I would argue that price is not a fair factor to judge the quality, innovativeness, or utility of a product.

Here's some halon gas for your flame.


----------



## Brigadier (Jun 24, 2010)

Bingo. First thing I think to myself when I see a Rolex on someone's wrist is "Real or fake?"


----------



## fishx65 (Jun 24, 2010)

This reminds me of the golfclub clone wars back in the eighties. By standing together, the big companies ended up winning. Now, most dedicated golfers wouldn't be caught dead swinging a set of clones. I think SF would go bankrupt trying to stop these clones from being sold.


----------



## gcbryan (Jun 24, 2010)

Brigadier said:


> Bingo. First thing I think to myself when I see a Rolex on someone's wrist is "Real or fake?"



The first thing I think when I see a Rolex on someone's wrist is why?

I usually just wear a Timex since it seems to keep better time and then I attached a bag with $10k worth of gold to the wrist band just so that everyone that sees it will know that I have $10k to spend on a watch.


----------



## F250XLT (Jun 24, 2010)

Brigadier said:


> Bingo. First thing I think to myself when I see a Rolex on someone's wrist is "Real or fake?"



Isn't that the truth...


----------



## GarageBoy (Jun 24, 2010)

gcbryan said:


> The first thing I think when I see a Rolex on someone's wrist is why?
> 
> I usually just wear a Timex since it seems to keep better time and then I attached a bag with $10k worth of gold to the wrist band just so that everyone that sees it will know that I have $10k to spend on a watch.



It's a hobby, everyone has one. You're on a flashlight forum, not really one to criticize others. 
Some people appreciate the quality that goes into a Rolex 3135 movement, some people appreciate how well the circuit inside a Fenix regulates...

The thing is, many large companies started out as clones. Early Canon cameras were fitted with the M39 screw mount (same as the Leica). Nikon rangefinders were a cross between Contax and Leica. 

Some of these had features that Leicas didn't and was able to put themselves on the map this way


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2010)

If it weren't for the cloning of the original IBM PC the industry may have taken a more "exclusive" turn, putting cheap computers in the market lead to the better variance in design, competition & user configurability we enjoy today... I build my own PC's from (specifically chosen) specialist components and don't merely *accept* what the "price war suppliers" offer 

I guess you could say cloning significantly contributed to the exponential growth rate of the Computer Industry, did you read all of that article you linked to support your anti-clone arguement Carrot? IBM actually benefited from the growth in clones because they set out to commoditize the add-on market (components/hardware) of which they are a manufacturer :thumbsup:

Clone flashlights not only compete on price point some offer increased "user configurability" as well, known brands trade on their reputation, quality, warranty service and to some extent "snobbery value"


----------



## 65535 (Jun 24, 2010)

But how does cost matter, cloning something is just flagrant cheating. You buy a timex, you're not competing with Rolex like if you bought a fake. 

Buying a Fenix vs. a Surefire is not like buying a chinese SF clone vs. a Surefire.


----------



## 65535 (Jun 24, 2010)

I think people in this thread tend towards the SF vs. any other production light made. 

Seems many people fail to realize, Surefire doesn't care much as a company about some people with OCD about their flashlights. They don't care that you have a light that costs more than a chinese light. They make lights for government contracts, and as a bonus we can also purchase their products, but they don't care a whole lot about collectors.

Police forces, military organizations, and the like go Surefire, cheap chinese clones are not an option, Surefire knows that, they don't care much about those clones (or it doesn't seem like they should have to).

IMO it's lazy and irresponsible to go and buy some cheap chinese lights if you know about Surefire and know they're a copy.

People complain about the US economy, then go and spend $100 on cheap lights and electronics at a Chinese owned and operated website selling products that only support China's economy.


----------



## mclight (Jun 24, 2010)

blame the consumer. There's obviously a huge market for the clones - across many industries/products. 

And blame globilization. China has become the world's factory. When MNC's setup up factories in China and engage Chinese ODMs - the MNCs expose their IP to be stolen, and cloned. 

And, suppressed prices give the illusion of zero inflation.


----------



## Brigadier (Jun 24, 2010)

mclight said:


> blame the consumer. There's obviously a huge market for the clones - across many industries/products.


 
Bingo. Saving a few $$ is more important than any form of integrity.


----------



## Batou00159 (Jun 24, 2010)

mclight said:


> blame the consumer. There's obviously a huge market for the clones - across many industries/products.



+1


----------



## DM51 (Jun 24, 2010)

If you buy a clone, you are rewarding a thief who has stolen a design.

Excellent post, carrot :thumbsup:


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 24, 2010)

carrot said:


> *Why clones are bad for consumers, and subsequently The Product*
> 
> 1) Clones indicate a lack of attention to detail. If a manufacturer cannot be bothered to come up with their own feature set and/or aesthetic styling,


to relate this to torches - torches once were round and conform in shape generally to the length and shape of the batteries. This supposed need to create their "own" aesthetic is tiresome to me. So many little uselsss bumps, thin bits, square bits just to create a "unique" look takes away from the usefulness of the products. It's all a bit silly to me.

I'm a shallow person and have no care at all for how much success a company gathers. For me, once a product is created it either stands on its own two feet or it doesn't. If a "clone" can do the job then I say go the clone.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2010)

DM51 said:


> If you buy a clone, you are rewarding a thief who has stolen a design.



Using that stand point all compatible aftermarket parts using any part of the original component's design (to ensure fitment/aesthetic continuity) is also in itself rewarding a design thief is it not? :thinking:


----------



## gcbryan (Jun 24, 2010)

It's more efficient for me to buy the best product for me. If I choose to buy a flashlight made in another country and that results in me having more money in my pocket that's efficient as well.

That's extra money that will likely stay in my local community rather than in someone else's pocket who just happens to live in the same country that I do but is located 3,000 miles away.

It's also rewarding the company that supplied what I want. A copy of a Surefire is not a copy. If Surefire is about better materials and the clone isn't then it isn't a copy.

All flashlights look more or less the same or should anyway. Refrigerators all look the same but I don't see anyone claiming that one is a clone of the other. The only difference is where they're made.

If clone flashlights were made in California I'm guessing there wouldn't be this thread.


----------



## kramer5150 (Jun 24, 2010)

No way.

There are some things the design originators flat out stink at. Two off the top of my head are 18650 & RCR123 compatibility and brightest/warmest BIN emitters. Clones (and to a lesser degree offshore manufacturers) kick a$$ in these areas. No CPF'er should be forced to buy a pale/blue/dim light if they do not want to.

FWIW, my idea of a clone is any 1" diameter weapon mountable light, any P60 host, any light with attack / strike edges or tactical grip rings. As a Surefire fan, I would love to join the haters... but frankly, there are some things the clone designs do better, ruling them out across the board would eliminate some excellent lighting tools from my arsenal.


----------



## carrot (Jun 24, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> If it weren't for the cloning of the original IBM PC the industry may have taken a more "exclusive" turn, putting cheap computers in the market lead to the better variance in design, competition & user configurability we enjoy today... I build my own PC's from (specifically chosen) specialist components and don't merely *accept* what the "price war suppliers" offer
> 
> I guess you could say cloning significantly contributed to the exponential growth rate of the Computer Industry, did you read all of that article you linked to support your anti-clone arguement Carrot? IBM actually benefited from the growth in clones because they set out to commoditize the add-on market (components/hardware) of which they are a manufacturer :thumbsup:
> 
> Clone flashlights not only compete on price point some offer increased "user configurability" as well, known brands trade on their reputation, quality, warranty service and to some extent "snobbery value"


Hi [email protected], yes I did read the post I linked, however it was some time ago. But look at where IBM is now -- they've left the hardware market in commodity PC's completely! And Compaq, a once strong company, got bought by HP.

So, success in the short run. In the long run? Not so certain.


----------



## Solscud007 (Jun 24, 2010)

throwing in my 2 cents. As an avid collector of surefire lights. I welcome clones with a caveat. 

L6 Porcupine. I bought one for a great price. Love that light. But too worried about losing it or it getting confiscated at the airport.

Then Fire Kylin knocks off the Porcupine. I was worried that it would ruin the value of my Porcupine.

Not so. the clone makes the porcupine more available to people who want one. But it did not diminish the value of my porcupine.

Two porcupines were sold very recently for a rather high price. $1500 and $1000. I sold mine for $1000. 

So I think clones have their place but it takes someone to appreciate what they are and what they are good for.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 24, 2010)

I'll stay away from surefire since I've never even seen one let alone used one nor ever likely will but as I see it, one problem with offering protection to "original designs" in regards to products is that it then falls to only the "original" company to make improvements and updates at their own pace and so the flow of enhanced technology can actually be slowed by the protection.

Once something's on the market it should be fair game. If the "original" company can make it better or for a better price then it will be a success for them, if not then the "clones" will do better.

For me there's too much modern day concentration on style and exclusivity and protecting designs just exacerbates that problem.


----------



## jacktheclipper (Jun 24, 2010)

Competition is good for the consumer

Let the Market decide

The cream will rise to the top


----------



## carrot (Jun 24, 2010)

Brigadier said:


> Bingo. Saving a few $$ is more important than any form of integrity.


By your logic, it is also okay to shoplift, because you are saving a few dollars. It is also okay to pirate movies, software, games and music, because you are saving a few dollars. By extension, it is okay to lie, cheat and steal to gain a few dollars, right? Because all you're losing is integrity.

JDIO, I would never dream of banning clones, or otherwise offering protection. I am far more in favor of diminishing copyright laws than you think. Clones have their place, as I mentioned in the very end, they keep the originator on their feet and make things affordable to those who could never afford the real thing. But it doesn't mean I have to like them.

I noticed your strong aversion to styling and brand image. You are missing the point. The point is, copying someone else's design is an excellent indicator of the copier's lack of ingenuity and is a great litmus test for the quality you can expect from said clone. You cannot expect innovation from someone who can't even innovate their own look.


----------



## PayBack (Jun 24, 2010)

I can't think of a more Pro Clone connection to make than that of computers.

I work in IT, and am a gamer, and have been a gamer for about 25 years... and I am SO glad clones came out.

Carrot your argument seems to be that (at least with computers) cloning is bad for big companies like IBM and Compaq... well I'm sorry if they're profit drops from hundred of millions down to tens of millions, but if it's good for every consumer in the market for a computer I don't see the problem. Especially when much of their decline is down to their inability to adapt to a fast changing industry. (oh wakey wakey Music and Film industry if you're reading this cos you didn't learn from their mistake.. in fact you're even slower! )

My first new computer was a $4000 apple //e (You'd be amazed how little you got for the money) and after that my next new computer was a $9000 NEC (again no way was if value for money). Around that time clones were just starting to come out... thank Goodness they did.

Not only did value for money increase, innovation did too. It had to because you couldn't force computers buys to by your produce due to them having no other options. Sure there are some duds, but the only cost I can see is a requirement to do the smallest amount of research before parting with your money).

Alternatively, if you want to see lack of innovation and customer care, and pricing bordering on extortion, then look at our Telephone company before unbundling the local loop came in to force them to allow others to compete.


----------



## Locoboy5150 (Jun 24, 2010)

I'm new to this subject of cloned flashlights. What is considered a "clone" to flashaholics? There are many lights that are not the first of their type on the market, but they are a little bit different than what is already out. Are those considered clones?

Or are we talking about fake merchandise where company B makes a light that is a direct copy of company A's light and is sold under company A's name. Is that considered a clone?


----------



## seahunt (Jun 24, 2010)

And, in the end you pays yo money and yo takes yo choice.
Competition is good for consumers.
Is there competition in gasoline industry, medical services, cable tv service??
So we end-up paying more than we should have to. Ever run-into
total arrogance by the vendor? Believe it when A Large sporting goods
store here went belly-up not even one year later. Manager was an
anal sphincter---lost his job.
Financial resources are not infinite for most of us.
End of rant. lovecpf


----------



## gcbryan (Jun 24, 2010)

Carrot, actually I thought Brigadier was being sarcastic and was in agreement with you (I could be wrong).

I disagree however. Integrity has nothing to do with this subject. No laws are being broken. It's not in our best interest to buy Surefire rather than some other brand.

The cheaper lights aren't original looking because they are going to the inexpensive end of the market where people aren't willing to pay large premiums for a unique look for a flashlight.

This thread would make more sense if the (and so should you) portion of the title were left out.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 24, 2010)

carrot said:


> I noticed your strong aversion to styling and brand image. You are missing the point. The point is, copying someone else's design is an excellent indicator of the copier's lack of ingenuity and is a great litmus test for the quality you can expect from said clone. You cannot expect innovation from someone who can't even innovate their own look.


I might be missing YOUR point but that's because I don't actually agree that you've hit THE point (see the distinction?). I miss your point because I see things differently. 

Sometimes someone may just copy a design (and what constitutes a "design" is well open to semantic debate) due to lack of ingenuity but it may also be for a dozen other reasons.

Manufacturers "make" products, that's their thing. They often don't care where the "design" comes from or how "ingenious" it is. They just want to make and sell a product for a profit. There is nothing other than assumption to say that a copying producer must make something of lesser quality than the original "designer" does. 

Only one person can "invent" the LED torch. Only one person can "invent" the gold cased gold braceleted watch. Only one person can "invent" penicillin. Once that's done, others can only tinker around the edges or change the "style" but that's no reason for them not to be involved in manufacturing or selling products based on that original invention nor improving upon them. Innovation can be good if it leads to new things but it can be a completely useless waste of time, money and endeavour when it's simply used to make one thing look or seem different from something else that's essentially the same product so that it can be called "unique". 

All that time that's spent re-inventing the wheel could be spent improving it instead, but to do that the western world's view would have to change to allow us to freely build upon someone else's original design rather than have to come up with our own "design" of the same thing so as to avoid patent suits and the like.


----------



## higbvuyb (Jun 24, 2010)

Well, what does a clone clone?
Build quality? 
No. Clones rarely have the build quality to match the original, so if you want that, then you'll have to get the original.
Funtionality?
Not really. If it has any special UI, the clone isn't likely to have it, and would instead have a generic reverse clicky with a generic X-mode driver. Anything special like infinite variabilty or a Smart Ring isn't likely to be on the clone because it's hard to make and would make it expensive. 
You could cite things like 'throwy reflector' as part of functionality, but they could just copy the reflector curvature and nobody would call it a clone.
Brand identity/warranty/customer service?
Definitely not.
Compatibility on a common platform?
Yes. However, while this might even be damaging to the original manufacturer, having some sort of standard is very good for the consumer and the market. Who wants to live in a world where nothing is compatible and you can only change what the manufacturer is willing to sell to you (except they won't, because the costs are too high for small markets)?
This can also benefit the company in ways. How many people who have thought 'The surefire 6P looks great, but I don't like the LED that comes with it' but then bought one because someone _stole_ their P60 design and made a better dropin?
Almost the only thing you get with a clone is a similar _appearance_ - you lose everything else, so the sort of person who is getting a clone would basically say "That looks OK but I don't put any value on the actual features, I want something generic and inexpensive" and obviously doesn't value the extra quality, functionality, customer service, etc, that comes with the original. Such a person isn't likely to buy the original in the first place, whether or not the clone exists. Except in the _rare_ case where a clone actually comes very close to the orginal product.


----------



## rookiedaddy (Jun 24, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> If it weren't for the cloning of the original IBM PC the industry may have taken a more "exclusive" turn, putting cheap computers in the market lead to the better variance in design, competition & user configurability we enjoy today... I build my own PC's from (specifically chosen) specialist components and don't merely *accept* what the "price war suppliers" offer
> 
> I guess you could say cloning significantly contributed to the exponential growth rate of the Computer Industry, did you read all of that article you linked to support your anti-clone arguement Carrot? IBM actually benefited from the growth in clones because they set out to commoditize the add-on market (components/hardware) of which they are a manufacturer :thumbsup:
> 
> Clone flashlights not only compete on price point some offer increased "user configurability" as well, known brands trade on their reputation, quality, warranty service and to some extent "snobbery value"


+1
Perhaps Carrot should put or link to some actual flashlight "clones" that he is referring to...



carrot said:


> Hi [email protected], yes I did read the post I linked, however it was some time ago. But look at where IBM is now -- they've left the hardware market in commodity PC's completely! And Compaq, a once strong company, got bought by HP.
> So, success in the short run. In the long run? Not so certain.


I don't think you can blame it on clones, the demise of IBM and Compaq machines largely due to mis-management and miss-opportunity.

Allow me to quote iPhone's boss once "quoting": "...Good artists copy great artists steal..." :devil:


----------



## sjmack (Jun 24, 2010)

Competition is good. Blatant imitation in order to take the easy route for earning a buck is bad.

There is a reason why I still buy Surefires when there are cheaper and and very very similar options out there. 

Good post, Carrot.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Jun 24, 2010)

I don't know how much of this confusion is my own and how much is due to the acknowledged ambiguity by the OP ("please don't use names") but I'm at a loss for clone vs. counterfeit. I have a hunch I know when you all are going, but maybe my lack of understanding is due to the fact that I haven't really bought many "budget" lights. Or are some implying that there are major labels with a CPF presence which also fit into the "clone" wars discussion?

Based on my own loose understanding at current time of what I think "clone" means, I don't see the point. So a clone is cheap, works off the backs of other flashlight innovators, and doesn't provide the quality found in the preferred brands. I've got news for you, that's 99% of what's sold in B&M stores which probably accounts for the majority of flashlight sales for the general public who will never even know what CPF is, nor will they care.


----------



## computernut (Jun 24, 2010)

Good post Carrot! One of my other hobbies is R/C and there are totally blatant rip-off copies of some cars (ie. HPI Baja 5B) where even the parts are interchangeable. People go out and buy these cars which are 1/3 to 1/2 the price and wonder why the engine fails and the parts break easier. I tend to prefer to buy items from manufacturers that put pride and thought into their work rather than rush something to market that's just a copy.


----------



## lightfooted (Jun 24, 2010)

While I agree that counterfeits can definitely hurt the industry I cannot say the same in regards to "clones". Assuming here that a clone is simply a flashlight that is made to resemble a particular "high-end" flashlight but made of cheaper materials with less quality control. You get what you pay for....sometimes it can be quite the gem, while other times it's just a piece of glass. I feel it spurs the bigger names to work harder at producing a better product. 

When I bought my original 6P, it was the brightest light, not just for it's size but often outshining lights much larger that were supposed to be bright. They were the only ones making such lights. Are they still the brightest?

Compaq failed because of their hardware...because they thought you should pay 2-3 times retail price for a minimal performance upgrade. (proprietary hardware)


----------



## Lumenz (Jun 24, 2010)

Most of these posts are not actually touching on the problem of clones. I am reading posts about competition and monopolies but these have nothing to do with cloning. Cloning is making a product that looks very closely to the exact same light as the original manufacturer. 

"That's a nice Rol... Wait... Role*k* watch?" Surefire putting a strike bezel on their lights and then some Chinese manufacturer putting a strike bezel on their flashlights is not cloning, it is copying. That same manufacturer coming out with a flashlight that looks exactly like a 6P for half the price is cloning. 

Let's try to stay on topic.


----------



## kingofwylietx (Jun 24, 2010)

I mostly agree with the OP's position. 

However, the clones can also be beneficial. One example is a product my company sells. When the manufacturer was protected, their prices were very high compared to their cost (I'm not against profit, but it was insane). They failed to innovate, they rested on their own coat tails. However, when their protections expired, in came the clones. The clones actually were of a slightly lower quality, but that is fairly irrelevant. Our manufacturer began losing market share and started innovating and putting money into R&D. Now, they have some very good new products and the older copied designs are much less critical to their future. 

Without the competition from the clones, they would have become an outdated/antiquainted product line (the direction they were headed). Their focus on new products has not waned and they are still introducing new products. Now, they even ask their customers if there is something they would like them to produce or if there is a feature they would like to add to a product. They are much more customer-oriented now.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 24, 2010)

Lumenz said:


> Most of these posts are not actually touching on the problem of clones. Cloning is making a product that looks very closely to the exact same light as the original manufacturer.


 I think we all pretty much understand that aspect but there's a whole lot of different facets to the issue than just one product being made by someone to look similar to another product.

Most posts I see in this thread are on topic in one way or another, it's just a much broader issue that your particular reading of it suggests.


----------



## baterija (Jun 24, 2010)

carrot said:


> By your logic, it is also okay to shoplift, because you are saving a few dollars. It is also okay to pirate movies, software, games and music, because you are saving a few dollars. By extension, it is okay to lie, cheat and steal to gain a few dollars, right? Because all you're losing is integrity.



Except in the absence of protected intellectual property, or real property, (like in shoplifting) it is entirely different. Our stores are full of items that we don't consider clones that use technology and innovations for which IP rights have expired or never existed. Nylon, for example, was patented by Dupont. That patent protection has long since expired. I don't see people wailing and gnashing their teeth over holsters/sheaths composed of nylon that are produced by companies not paying royalties to Dupont.


----------



## Black Rose (Jun 25, 2010)

carrot said:


> But look at where IBM is now -- they've left the hardware market in commodity PC's completely! And Compaq, a once strong company, got bought by HP.


And HP in turn is now gunning for IBMs current business cash cow....services.

Anyway, as soon as I read your post I knew what it was referring to.

Kramer5150 already touched on the points I was going to make (battery size support and use of modern emitters) so I won't rehash that.

Overall I can see your point and agree with it to some extent, but on the flipside, if it weren't for the clones I bet there are a lot of folks here that would not have Brand A products in their collections or EDC arsenal.

I know if it wasn't for purchasing a clone I would not have any Brand A products sitting in front of me now.

If we look at the clone argument with a different product, is it still an issue?

Take the AA alkaline battery that's been around for a decades. 
Who created the first one? (Eveready)
Are they still in business? (Sort of)
Are the other manufacturers that basically produce the exact same thing considered clones?


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 25, 2010)

Let's just say that SureLite invented posphorous compound on a stick, called it the SureLite F1 Match, then put it on the market for three hundred bucks a box as is their right.

Another company later came along and started making phosphorous compound on a stick, called it the FireLite L1 Match, and started selling it for fifty bucks a box.

Nowhere is it laid down in law that FireLite's product will be a lesser quality or lack any "attention to detail". It may or it may not. That will be a manufacturing/marketing/accounting decision. FireLite may make the same or bigger profit through bigger volumes, they may make less but it's quite possible for such a cloning company to make well and truly enough to allow for even higher quality or reliability in their version of the product.

Does FireLite's cloning of the F1 Match mean a lack of innovation in further match development? Would such a lack of innovation matter? No, the Match is a match and there's little to improve. We could make it in a different colour, we could make it bigger or smaller, we could make it waterproof, we could package it differently but in the long run unless we can make it re-lightable and last forever there's no real innovation to be had, there's just room for tinkering around the edges.

Does paying three hundred bucks a box for the original SureLite product give me a greater "sense of worth" in the product or in having it? That will depend on the type of personality I have I reckon. 

Does the fact that SureLite's F1 Match is the "original" version give me a greater sense of worth? Not unless it turns out to be a better value product than the clone, but that's just me.

Will I feel a greater "sense of worth" in the product knowing that SureLite will replace any F1 Match that fails to fire for the life of the box? For me that will depend greatly on the likelihood of that unfortunate "failure to fire" occurring and also on whether I feel that having that aftercare feature is worth the extra two hundred and fifty's worth of price gouging overlaid against any possible extra likelihood of the failure rate of the cheaper product.

To me the FireLite clone is not a "problem" nor a bad thing for society in general despite it having the potential to adversely affect the original SureLite company's bottom line. As a consumer I don't really care about companies and their success or failure, there's always another company around the corner.

In the F1 Match case, a mindset (or set of laws) that discouraged the cloning of products could well have left me as a consumer worse off and allowed a company to gouge whatever it liked from me. I just don't fall for the company line.


----------



## bestcounsel (Jun 25, 2010)

plus 1...

Also, if one is using the light for any type of safety/leo/fire/emt/security work, you are putting oneself in danger too (bad clickies)






DM51 said:


> If you buy a clone, you are rewarding a thief who has stolen a design.
> 
> Excellent post, carrot :thumbsup:


----------



## pwr (Jun 25, 2010)

Clone is not all bad (generic drugs, Kimber 1911s), fake is bad.


----------



## cheapbastard (Jun 25, 2010)

Despite my name I do agree that clones are undesirable. If a company is capable of replicating another company's product they may as well design their own unique version instead of violating copyrights.

On the other hand I don't think that compatible products can be put in the same class as clones. By using the IBM-compatible PC analogy I think the OP was criticizing the P60 host/drop-in market, but the way I see it a clone is a flashlight that is a blatant ripoff of the original Surefire design (including the appearance). If a company wants to make a P60 compatible flashlight they can do so but they should not imitate the appearance of another company's product. It should be clear at first glance that it is not the same product.



gcbryan said:


> Carrot, actually I thought Brigadier was being sarcastic and was in agreement with you



That's what I thought too


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 25, 2010)

pwr said:


> Clone is not all bad (generic drugs, Kimber 1911s), fake is bad.


yes, an attempt to deceive the consumer by falsely placing the original company's name on your clone product is a whole different thing in my eyes. The consumer has a right to be made aware of all that a product is.


----------



## carrot (Jun 25, 2010)

cheapbastard said:


> Despite my name I do agree that clones are undesirable. If a company is capable of replicating another company's product they may as well design their own unique version instead of violating copyrights.
> ...
> , but the way I see it a clone is a flashlight that is a blatant ripoff of the original Surefire design (including the appearance). If a company wants to make a P60 compatible flashlight they can do so but they should not imitate the appearance of another company's product. It should be clear at first glance that it is not the same product.


Yep.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 25, 2010)

rookiedaddy said:


> the demise of IBM and Compaq machines largely due to mis-management and miss-opportunity.





lightfooted said:


> Compaq failed because of their hardware...because they thought you should pay 2-3 times retail price for a minimal performance upgrade. (proprietary hardware)



Good points, where IBM created an "industry standard" Compaq attempted to "extort" consumers limiting their repair/replacement part options with (propriety components), IBM diversified from it's PC producing status (selling of the PC business to Lenovo) but still offers IBM data storage devices alongside it's Business integration/support services business model :thumbsup:

Another point worth making is clone production fills the niche left by ceased product lines like the Surefire 3P OR Raidfire Spear, this doesn't devalue the original product only making it more "desirable" to diehard collectors and thus resale value of original lights is way above that of their clones...

FWIW counterfeit flashlights are 100% unacceptable :green:


----------



## hoongern (Jun 25, 2010)

I think one thing to consider is that in many countries, the originals are not easily available, or if they are, may cost way above their original cost - and made even worse by the fact that wages in the country aren't as high. Furthermore, the warranties of the original product may not apply in other countries.

I'm not saying that this makes it right. I just think that this is what may drive the demand for clones in some areas of the world.

--

For me, assuming we're talking about surefires, I have bought some p60/d26 compatible lights which don't look like the originals. Mainly because they come with things like UCL lenses, 18mm-cell compatibility from factory, etc.


----------



## nanomu (Jun 25, 2010)

Great post!



carrot said:


> I will not name names but those with a keen eye and sense of engineering who have both Brand A, high end product, and Brand B, high performance low cost product, where Brand B chooses to copy significant parts of Brand A's styling in order to piggyback on Brand A's popularity and brand image, will notice that Brand B has all sorts of interesting engineering shortcomings and a distinct lack of attention to detail.



I'm not going to name names, but I can think of one obvious example in the flashlight industry. If Brand A were to concentrate more on an inexpensive subbrand (let's call it Brand A^2), "knockoff" Brand B might develop less credibility. In this case, however, Brand B has actually made some innovations (*ahem* 18650) widely overlooked by Brand A. I don't really think Brand B is taking away anything significant from Brand A, but offering an inexpensive alternative where Brand A has largely overlooked it.

Brand B ought to come up with some of their own designs someday. 

The price and quality difference between Brand A and Brand B is so wide, there's a huge void for Brand C, D and E to fill.


----------



## shark_za (Jun 25, 2010)

But the case in point (Surefire 6P) is pretty hard to design a light any different.

Take a 1 inch pipe long enough to hold 1xCR123 with a bigger diameter head to hold a D26 globe on and it looks like another pipe with head on. 

Cloning the real innovation in Surefire rarely happens. Who else has a tailcap switch like that? LOTC with momentary so simple and reliable.

Patenting the 1 inch pipe qoes a little far in my books.


----------



## hurricane (Jun 25, 2010)

OP: Couldn't agree more.


----------



## HKJ (Jun 25, 2010)

I think that cloning is very beneficial. Look at the P60 module, the original manufacturer has not followed up with development. With cloning we gets both cheap product, but also high quality and better product than the original manufacturer ever has done.
With PC's it is exactly the same.

As long as the original manufacturer keeps innovating and stays in the front with good products, clones is seldom a big problem. The people buying the cheap clones would not buy the original anyway and people that want a top product will buy that.

Copies are another story!


----------



## ace0001a (Jun 25, 2010)

Well, hate is a strong word when used in any context. Are you sure you don't mean dislike? Afterall, you do seem to feel that clones have their place. Sorry fellow forum member, I can't agree with you there and to be honest I don't like the idea of anyone telling me what I "should" think. With that said, I personally have no problems with clones in any industry. By me saying that, does not mean that I agree with stealing and no I am not a thief...though I am also one who believes that things in life are never just black and white, but also has lots of gray areas (morally, philosophically). To me, I believe clones while lacking innovation actually motivate originators to do better (as you've already said or implied)...and from a consumer standpoint allow those who are frugal or financially challenged to enjoy a product they might otherwise not ever consider buying. That's my opinion of course and ultimately the choice or beliefs should be left to the individual. To each their own I say...


----------



## jeeves (Jun 25, 2010)

Trade is complicated.

What's the actual complaint here?
That clones effect innovation? Pricing? Quality? 
Is it that "cloning" is 'morally' wrong?

I think just about everyone is missing the point.
Though, I can't explain it.


----------



## tygger (Jun 25, 2010)

How about the food industry? Aren't restaurants one giant cloning operation? Or entertainment? Most musicians and comedians make their start imitating well known artists until they find their voice. Are goods that different? Don't many manufactureres copy great designs until they develop their own uniqueness? Just a thought.


----------



## red02 (Jun 25, 2010)

carrot said:


> .............
> *Why clones are bad for consumers, and subsequently The Product*
> 
> 1) Clones indicate a lack of attention to detail. If a manufacturer cannot be bothered to come up with their own feature set and/or aesthetic styling, they also cannot be bothered to build a Product properly. I will not name names but those with a keen eye and sense of engineering who have both Brand A, high end product, and Brand B, high performance low cost product, where Brand B chooses to copy significant parts of Brand A's styling in order to piggyback on Brand A's popularity and brand image, will notice that Brand B has all sorts of interesting engineering shortcomings and a distinct lack of attention to detail. Brand C, high performance low cost product, with its own styling and some investment into R&D, will often tend to have better attention to detail because their brand is riding on their own image, not the coattails of others. Don't think for a moment that this applies to only flashlights. Consider my earlier car analogy and follow up by considering clone manufacturers and their reputation in that industry.



Making a copy requires more attention to detail, not less. Creativity and quality are not one and the same. If a company makes a bad products that fails or do not live up to expectations, that same company will suffer *not the competition* since it will be their brand that draws scrutiny. 



carrot said:


> 2) Clones do not offer as great a sense of worth. For many of us who are avid product users, whether something is a clone or not has little effect on its pure utilitarian value, aside my previous statement about quality and lack of attention to details. However, for many of us who are also collectors and cherish the products we own for whatever desirable properties they have, we can take pride in having and using an excellent, well-designed, thoughtfully engineered Product. Joy and satisfaction is hard to qualify but I take much greater satisfaction in using an Original Product that a clone. I think many others would also agree.
> ................



This does not effect the average consumer, especially those who view value as performance/$. Collectors are a breed of their own. It also depends on the person, some people value rolex knock offs as status symbols even though they know its a fake. Personally I value my replica Steve Y Detroit Red Wings Jersey that I got the first time I went to a game. A symbol is what you invest into it. 

I am not convinced that I should hate clones or that they are bad since they encourage needed innovation and deter stagnation. Personally I think using such language encourages polarization and not healthy debate. Consumers are also helped by price drops as well as the performance(how ever you measure it: ie durability, efficiency, ect.)/$ increases. As a consumer, I want competition instead of a single company cornering the market.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 25, 2010)

Brigadier said:


> Bingo. First thing I think to myself when I see a Rolex on someone's wrist is "Real or fake?"


 
One dead giveaway is to ask the person the time. While they look down, take a peek as well. If the seconds literally tick by, it's a fake. A real Rolex won't tick, that hand literally sweeps around the face.

Also . . . +1 regarding everything carrot posted.


----------



## jimmy1970 (Jun 25, 2010)

If I can bring the conversation back to P60 based lights, I personally want the best quality available. That is why I only buy Surefire. Only my opinion, 

James....


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 25, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> One dead giveaway is to ask the person the time. While they look down, take a peek as well. If the seconds literally tick by, it's a fake. A real Rolex won't tick, that hand literally sweeps around the face..


it'll work for a lot of em but plenty of "fake rolexes" also have 28800 bph movements these days.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Jun 25, 2010)

JaguarDave-in-Oz said:


> it'll work for a lot of em but plenty of "fake rolexes" also have 28800 bph movements these days.



I once saw a man wearing a fake rolex... the second hand didn't even move 

Needless to say, I brought up the fact that it was fake.


----------



## Jash (Jun 25, 2010)

I'm a little divided on this subject. I agree with what Carrot is saying, but...

I work in a unique industry, piano sales and service, and what we have is cloning on a mass scale.

The Europeans invented the paino forte and about two centuries later the Japanese tried their hand at it. In particular Yamaha, who taught Kawai.

In fact the Yamaha logo that covers everything the company makes, from recorders, guitars, pianos, to motorbikes and jetskis, is actually three tuning forks crossing eachother. This is derived from it's origins, pianos.

When Yamaha first started, their instruments were far behind what Europe and America were making. However, they caught up fairly quickly and now make what is considered by many a professional musician, teaching institution and recording studio, the BEST.

Now the Chinese are starting to build half decent pianos and the Pearl River factory is now the largest producer of pianos in the world. That title used to belong to Yamaha.

It is now the Japanese who have set the benchmark and I would say that sometime in the future the Chinese will set the benchmark many a wuality product.

I'm not saying that other countries don't make good stuff, it's just that the Asian's know how to do it, cheaply.

How old are companies like Fenix, Quark, Nitecore, Jetbeam? Give it another 5 years and these manufacturers are going to be making some red hot product (better than what they make now).

I don't think Surefire is in any way at risk in the same way Steinway isn't at risk from Yamaha, but one day you will be able to buy a product as good as western made stuff at half the price, or less.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 25, 2010)

Great topic Carrot. +1 :thumbsup:.

It would seem to me that most brand companies would have a vested interest in producing quality items. They are in it for the repeat business.

Clone companies appear to be looking for the next hot thing and as long as a fast profit is there to be made and if they don't have to spend anything on R&D then that's just extra cash in their pockets.

If consumers quit buying a clone product from its failure they just clone the next hottest thing and throw that out on the market.

Having owned both a high grade swiss watch (we all know the brand) and an almost indistingushable swiss clone of it given to me as a gift I can say that there was a big difference.

The clone has long since died; the poor thing rusting from a light summer storm at the beach. The real one, battered and punished in far more hideous ways, is purring away on my wrist as we speak.

My experiences with flashlights has been similar.

My suspicions based on experiences such as this is that odds are the clone may not be a better value for me in the long run.

I'll take the brand flashlight over a clone any day for the reputation for reliability (of course being aware that anything may fail). I feel that my and my loved ones well being is worth the few extra $ spent for the original and the R&D that company puts into improving on a solid product.

My two cents, thrown in, for whatever they're worth.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 25, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Having owned both a high grade swiss watch (we all know the brand) and an almost indistingushable swiss clone of it given to me as a gift I can say that there was a big difference.
> 
> The clone has long since died; the poor thing rusting from a light summer storm at the beach. The real one, battered and punished in far more hideous ways, is purring away on my wrist as we speak.


Interesting re the watch thing. I bought a Rolex GMT master in 1984. I think the current price in Australian Dollars at an Aussie dealer of such a model is about nine grand. It's serviced every five years or so and is still going strong and has a steady rate of gain at about three seconds a day.

After a couple of decades of every day wear I've mostly stopped wearing my Rolex it cos it's been treated pretty rough and is showing many marks on the stainless case and bracelet, though admittedly it's wearing rather gracefully.

A couple of years back I bought what could be called a Rolex clone. It's an Invicta 8926 that looks very very much like a Rolex Submariner of the eighties and nineties and has most of the same features. This watch contains a Japanese 21 Jewel Miyota movement, same as supplied for many Citizen watches. The case is decent quality stainless steel. I've worn the watch 24 hours a day through thick and thin (I have a very rough lifestyle) for most of that couple of years and the watch has performed admirably and I expect that the movement could continue to do so for at least as long as the Rolex has done so far (as millions of Citizen movements have done before).

This Invicta "clone" watch isn't as accurate as the Rolex because it's rate isn't quite as constant as the Rolex. It doesn't come adjusted to as many positions as the Rolex. The Invicta will gain two seconds one day and four another. It's still very good for a mechanical watch and I admit I've regulated it myself to give it the best shot at accuracy. It certainly performs as accurately as I need a watch to do.

Given that the Invicta cost me about a fiftieth of what my real Rolex would cost today I think it's much better value than my Rolex was. 

I always liked the look of Rolexes. I Probably liked the look more than any other aspect of them but my stance on expenditure of my money on "snob products" has changed markedly in the intervening twenty five years since I bought that Rolex and I'd never entertain the idea of doing such a thing again. I'd rather buy ten half decent clones over the same period of time.

Note please. I'm referring to a clone here. It looks a lot like a Rolex but has a completely different and very obvious brand name and logo on it. I'm not into counterfeits.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Jun 25, 2010)

bestcounsel said:


> plus 1...
> 
> Also, if one is using the light for any type of safety/leo/fire/emt/security work, you are putting oneself in danger too (bad clickies)


This argument has been done over and over. Just because you spend out the wazzoo for the most reliable guaranteed light there is, does not guarantee it will be infallible.


[email protected] said:


> Using that stand point all compatible aftermarket parts using any part of the original component's design (to ensure fitment/aesthetic continuity) is also in itself rewarding a design thief is it not? :thinking:


Outstanding point. I'm still waiting to hear from the OP or DM whether they buy exclusively 100% OEM parts for their vehicles (that essentially means you've never stepped foot into an AutoZone, PepBoys, Advance Auto Parts, O'Reilly, Napa, or a host of other comparable stores which do not sell OEM parts).


JaguarDave-in-Oz said:


> Given that the Invicta cost me about a fiftieth of what my real Rolex would cost today I think it's much better value than my Rolex was.
> 
> I always liked the look of Rolexes. I Probably liked the look more than any other aspect of them but my stance on expenditure of my money on "snob products" has changed markedly in the intervening twenty five years since I bought that Rolex and I'd never entertain the idea of doing such a thing again. I'd rather buy ten half decent clones over the same period of time.
> 
> Note please. I'm referring to a clone here. It looks a lot like a Rolex but has a completely different and very obvious brand name and logo on it. I'm not into counterfeits.


Rolex will never fall to clones, period. And this is the classic argument in opposition to the OPs claim, that if a manufacturer is good enough and makes the right business decisions the whole debate over cloning is a non issue.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 25, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> Rolex will never fall to clones, period. And this is the classic argument in opposition to the OPs claim, that if a manufacturer is good enough and makes the right business decisions the whole debate over cloning is a non issue.


I'd go so far as to say that since the massive increase in cloning and counterfeiting in the eighties, Rolex has become much more widely known, gone from strength to strength and sells more "genuine" product than ever.


----------



## Brigadier (Jun 25, 2010)

gcbryan said:


> Carrot, actually I thought Brigadier was being sarcastic and was in agreement with you (I could be wrong).


 
Thank you!!!


----------



## Brigadier (Jun 25, 2010)

shark_za said:


> But the case in point (Surefire 6P) is pretty hard to design a light any different.
> 
> Take a 1 inch pipe long enough to hold 1xCR123 with a bigger diameter head to hold a D26 globe on and it looks like another pipe with head on.
> 
> ...


 
I disagree. For example, look at the LF Seraph series. P60 compatible, but no one would ever guess it is a SF me too light.


----------



## Brigadier (Jun 25, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> One dead giveaway is to ask the person the time. While they look down, take a peek as well. If the seconds literally tick by, it's a fake. A real Rolex won't tick, that hand literally sweeps around the face.
> 
> Also . . . +1 regarding everything carrot posted.


 
I have seen some very convincing fakes, complete with ETA 2824 automatic movements.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 25, 2010)

Brigadier said:


> I have seen some very convincing fakes, complete with ETA 2824 automatic movements.


and nowadays one needs to know what one is looking for to tell the real ETA 2824 from its Chinese clone....................


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Jun 25, 2010)

Brigadier said:


> I have seen some very convincing fakes, complete with ETA 2824 automatic movements.


 


JaguarDave-in-Oz said:


> and nowadays one needs to know what one is looking for to tell the real ETA 2824 from its Chinese clone....................


 
I don't see that this is pertinent to the discussion. I don't think anyone is debating the merits, or actually lack thereof, of counterfeits. Counterfeits are not clones.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 25, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> I don't see that this is pertinent to the discussion. I don't think anyone is debating the merits, or actually lack thereof, of counterfeits. Counterfeits are not clones.


In defence of myself, the chinese clones of ETA 2824 I mention are not counterfeits. They are clones called Seagull ST24 and to me, quite pertinent in the context of looking the same (they do not have ETA markings) but not being counterfeit but allowing "genuine" parts, such as dials, to be fitted.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Jun 25, 2010)

JaguarDave-in-Oz said:


> In defence of myself, the chinese clones of ETA 2824 I mention are not counterfeits. They are clones called Seagull ST24 and to me, quite pertinent in the context of looking the same (they do not have ETA markings) but not being counterfeit but allowing "genuine" parts, such as dials, to be fitted.


 
My point was more in reference to Brigadier's comment about admittedly fake 'hosts'; what's on the outside. Nobody who buys counterfeit cares what's on the inside. Someone who buys a clone just might care about the inside.


----------



## GeetarHero (Jun 25, 2010)

Totally agree with was.lost.but.now.found. regarding the Autoparts comment! Also to the OP and +1's, would you never drink a shasta cola or RC Cola because they are "clones of Coca Cola? Would you never purchase a Kirkland signature product from Costco because they're "clones" of the originals? I own Surefire, Fenix, Maglite and several "clones" but ultimately I love ALL my Flashlights! I feel that this is Fanboyism at its WORST! (If you're not a Fanboy then you shouldn't be offended) telling people how they "should" feel is a little bold and I applaud you for being so passionate about your beliefs OP but maybe your use of the word hate is what has so many posters willing to argue with you... I am a Guitar Hero Fanboy and I approved this message!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 25, 2010)

Sorry for not being more concise; The timepiece given to me carried its own brand name (not a counterfeit) and was advertised as 'have the quality without the price'. It wasn't (I still appreciate the thought).

To me it fit the definition of clone.

That brings up the question in my mind now; if the clone hadn't been available what would they have done?

Back to lights, I've owned a couple that 'had the look' but didn't have that same sense of quality in their construction or performance as the brand items they resembled. That's a couple of lights not sold by the company whos lights they resemble and two now useless pieces of metal in the recycle bin. That's my take on Carrots post.

This is fun.:huh:


----------



## carrot (Jun 25, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> This is fun.:huh:


I know, right? Everyone is at their best when they're passionate.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 25, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> Someone who buys a clone just might care about the inside.


and to stretch the watch situation a little further, if our clone consumer buys his Rolex clone (not fake Rolex) and does care about what's inside, is it logical for him to not feel as much of the original poster's "as great a sense of worth" because that movement does not have the ETA trademark to show it was sourced from the ETA company despite him never opening the watch to see it and the fact that the movement performs identically to the Swiss equivalent?


----------



## divine (Jun 25, 2010)

carrot said:


> I would never dare to argue the more expensive of two arbitrarily priced products is better based on price alone.


I suppose no one would guess that. :devil:


----------



## divine (Jun 25, 2010)

JaguarDave-in-Oz said:


> it'll work for a lot of em but plenty of "fake rolexes" also have 28800 bph movements these days.


It has been a while since I had read about them, but does Rolex even make 28800 bph watches?


----------



## Chrontius (Jun 25, 2010)

Ffffffffuuuuuuuu...

Stupid form ate a page long post.

Central points were thus:

Cloning happens when a market segment is underserved or unserved.

Whatever happened to form-follows-function? There's traces, but agonizing over point bits and doodads and frobbits machined onto $GENERIC_6V_TACLIGHT is no longer quite so annoying as the lack of cross-compatibility in their parts.

I am having trouble coming up with any designs with clean lines that aren't already in use and would be therefore all considered "clones". Example: Fivemega products are not (all, ignoring aftermarket parts for the sake of argument) clones, but his original designs have very busy machinework. Do they look good? Yes. Are they clean lines? Not really.

Edit: if so many people are down on clones, what about Fivemega's excellent 3P clone? His 18mm bodies? They're very close to identical to roundbody-era Surefires, and much more faithful than the cheap chinese knockoffs we love to hate in this thread.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 25, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> Outstanding point. I'm still waiting to hear from the OP or DM whether they buy exclusively 100% OEM parts for their vehicles (that essentially means you've never stepped foot into an AutoZone, PepBoys, Advance Auto Parts, O'Reilly, Napa, or a host of other comparable stores which do not sell OEM parts).


 
To me, reliability is the most important thing in a daily driver. 

Can't speak for others, but I've only bought car cleaning products from those places. (Along with a compact 2C flashlight at AAP.)

Every part in my ride is OEM. Guys who pimp out their Honda Civics always ride around on a daily basis in their girfriend's car. Those pimped out rides tend to have horrible reliability issues.


----------



## Kindle (Jun 25, 2010)

I've never seen anyone argue that clones have been bad for the computer industry with a straight face before.

Yay, if only IBM had stayed strong so we could all be using dumb terminals to log onto a central mainframe to have this discussion. :ironic:

Furthermore if your self worth is heavily invested in your flashlights, then a visit to your friendly neighborhood witch doctor (psychologist) might be worth considering.


----------



## Locoboy5150 (Jun 25, 2010)

I'd still like to know what the definition of a "clone" flashlight is.

If *anyone* can please define it, I'd be very grateful.


----------



## Kindle (Jun 25, 2010)

Locoboy5150 said:


> I'd still like to know what the definition of a "clone" flashlight is.
> 
> If *anyone* can please define it, I'd be very grateful.



I have a strong feeling that many of the posters in the thread have very different ideas as to what the definition constitutes.


----------



## HKJ (Jun 25, 2010)

Locoboy5150 said:


> I'd still like to know what the definition of a "clone" flashlight is.
> 
> If *anyone* can please define it, I'd be very grateful.



There are no exact definition of a clone, some people will yell clone, just because a light superficial looks like another light, other will require a more exact look and function.


----------



## Chrontius (Jun 25, 2010)

On a related but _very_ distinct note, has CPF ever actually had an open-source flashlight, with published specifications and drawings? I think the Aleph is as close as we ever came.

Would it be possible to create something that is both standardized and modular, where you can pick your tailcap independently of your switch (Kroll, McClicky, lockout, etc?), your driver and LED independent of the head? Something that could work with Aleph cans, D26 modules, and sandwiches?

Where everyone can, will, and should be making their own version of the light and is legally required to contribute their improved versions to the shared plans?


----------



## red02 (Jun 25, 2010)

HKJ said:


> There are no exact definition of a clone, some people will yell clone, just because a light superficial looks like another light, other will require a more exact look and function.


I think this is a very important distinction to set. In every debate there must be facts that both sides agree on such as definitions. Otherwise any argument made will be subjective and lose credibility.

Imagine a court case where the term "theft" is up for interpretation.


----------



## Locoboy5150 (Jun 25, 2010)

red02 said:


> I think this is a very important distinction to set. In every debate there must be facts that both sides agree on such as definitions. Otherwise any argument made will be subjective and lose credibility.
> 
> Imagine a court case where the term "theft" is up for interpretation.



I would agree with what Red02 said above. Based on what I've read in this thread, and I have read every post so far, what HKJ said is true in that there is no set definition of what a flashlight clone is here on CPF.

I initially thought that a clone was a fake light like those totally fake Fenix and MTE lights that have popped up from time to time. They actually say "Fenix" and "MTE" on them and were sold by the vendors as those brands, but they were not produced by those companies and were of inferior quality. Now I see that other non-US based brand names like Fenix and Jetbeam mentioned as clones in this thread. Are they clones because they are not US based manufacturers? I don't know of any Fenix or Jetbeam lights that are direct copies of any US made lights, so are they truly clones based on my original idea of what a clone flashlight is?

Then there are the numerous lights not made by Surefire that use the P60 type of drop-in, invented by Surefire. Are those what this thread defines as a clone?

There are also those brands of lights that I've heard referred to as "Clonefires" because their brand names consist of any word other than "Sure" in front of the word "Fire." Ultrafire is one such flashlight brand name. Are those considered clones because they copied the name but their lights are nothing like those from the brand name that they copied?

Yeah...I'm lost here.  Maybe I'm trying to understand this thread too much.


----------



## HKJ (Jun 25, 2010)

Usual a clone is used about a light that look (more or less) like another well known light, but uses its own name.
If it also uses the name of the well known light it is a copy and illegal.

Depending on the definition of clone, any P60 module can be viewed as a clone, but not necessarily the lights.

By "well known" I do not only mean SureFire, there are also both copies and clones of Chinese lights.


----------



## leon2245 (Jun 25, 2010)

o.p. what are some specific examples, specific models as example of what you mean? would anyone for instance be against the Fenix Ld15 after the E.Z. & aeon2? because that's just good competition, & i'm all for it.

or talking strictly identical reproductions, along with printing another's company name & model no.s on the forgeries? that's definitely a problem.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 25, 2010)

For starters, I believe clone means the exact duplication (DNA) of a living entity? In regards to an inanimate device or item then I would expect a clone to be an example of an item mass produced that is an exact duplicate of its kin being produced.

However, I believe the intent is to use clone to identify a copy generated or produced elsewhere than the original item. Does an item have to be an exact duplicate for all intents and purposes to qualify as a clone? :shrug: 

I have seen and heard of consumer items such as the Levis 501 jeans that were "bootlegged" or forgeries of the actual Levis product with the intent of being purchased under the presumption of being the real deal. To my thinking such an item would be a near clone but it's not my place to define a word or dictate how it is used. 

There are a number of terms:

clone
duplicate
copy
forgery
replica

which all may apply to some extent in this discussion and I do think the semantics can be critical if folks are trying to define or elaborate on their opinions.

If a leader stops blazing a trail, either a follower will have to assume the position or the path will not continue on and grow.

Consumers want improvement and new developments but they are sensitive to price and in some cases not willing to pay for the R&D if they can get the product from someone else and at a better price.

If there were no market for stolen goods, theft would be limited to those intent on being end users of the stolen goods and willing to steal them. If the theft is an idea stolen and the end user a manufacturer, then this manufacturer has a cost advantage over the manufacturer they stole from. The manufacturer is the thief but what is to be said of those who buy from this manufacturer? Are they morally or ethically obligated to resuse the items being offered? 

I believe the intent of patent law is to provide qualified protection to the originators of ideas as well as those who have funded the research and development into applications of these ideas. Unfortunately with an international marketplace, national patents can become a very costly proposition in themselves and no guarantee that real protection will result. Frankly I think there are other serious flaws in the patent industry as it is an industry with its own special interests and financial burden loaded on those who avail of its services.

It is not black and white and in fact there are so many shades of gray that gray markets exist and are identified as such.

The consumer can focus on a purchase either with or without considering the implications beyond the purchase and how their financial support will effect the future of the industry that produces the item being purchased. Beyond the item itself, the consumer may be totally indifferent to the industry or carry a strong passion, in its regards. Perhaps the question of the end justifying the means may apply in this discussion. 

"I want these feature sets and cheap as possible". 

By its nature, this type of demand I would think encourages the emergence of "clones", however defined. I am not passing any judgment here. Beyond obvious and illegal infringements the consumer is free to make decisions and in their incremental way, shape the future of products to come.

Marketing departments go to extremes in attempting to sway and shape the demand of the consumer but it is the consumer who makes the choice to consume; or not. There may be no choice in the matter or many options but it is ultimately the consumer who decides and casts their vote as it were. Are the decisions intelligent? Is the consumer properly versed and educated? Is the consumer's choice a good and wise one? For them? For the industry? :shrug:

I would guess that the subject of this thread refers to the notion that clones doe not encourage or support the advancement of the industry that generates them and for one interested in the industry's health and advancement, clones would then be looked upon with disfavor. That's my guess.

In a much bigger picture, I think the activity of consumption and market growth is becoming problematic in itself. There are those who believe we are going beyond sustainable practices and resources of a finite nature are approaching scarcity. At some point we might as individuals feel an obligation to future generations which might effect our decisions of what we consume and who we do business with.

Certain items needn't be disposable or quickly discarded and this might be a responsible consideration in choices we make.

As long as we can live with our choices, possibly no harm done or down side to consider. 

If waste and garbage removal were as costly as medical coverage I dare say we all would have different consumption habits than we presently do! On this note, the choice of clone or original might be be based on its anticipated duty cycle and how long one could avoid sending it to the land fill.

Sorry for long post which is more than just 2 cents and worth considerably less! :duck:


----------



## baterija (Jun 25, 2010)

Just a note since I have seen the term copyright used incorrectly a couple times in this thread. A nice quote that sums up what copyright is (from here with my emphasis added.)



> Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of "original works of authorship" including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly.
> 
> The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, *a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine.* Copyrights are registered by the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress.


Ok everybody repeat after me...

"Not a single one of my flashlights is copyrighted."


----------



## HKJ (Jun 25, 2010)

baterija said:


> "Not a single one of my flashlights is copyrighted."



Maybe not, but there are other kinds of protections beside copyright and patent. It is usual possible to do some kind of design protection.


----------



## Per-Sev (Jun 25, 2010)

gcbryan said:


> The first thing I think when I see a Rolex on someone's wrist is why?
> 
> I usually just wear a Timex since it seems to keep better time and then I attached a bag with $10k worth of gold to the wrist band just so that everyone that sees it will know that I have $10k to spend on a watch.


And I say because they can wear a Rolex and there proud of it just like buying a McGizmo light if someone cloned it just because it looked like one that does not mean it performed like one. I have owned a real Rolex and seen a fake close up and to me there was no comparison between the two if you know Rolex's you can tell. There are a lot of clones or reproduction out there now and it's just a form of steeling IMO. If you can't afford the originals don't pretend you can you are just acting like someone you are not be proud of who you are it does not matter what you can afford as long as you are true to yourself. I know what it is like to have it and to lose it all in one year and I would never buy a clone just to show off I am what I am a poor man and proud of it.


----------



## RGB_LED (Jun 25, 2010)

McGizmo, thanks for your post as it provides a good even argument. In my opinion, the problem with trying to label clones as 'bad' is that we are applying ethics to the equation of supply & demand of goods. Unfortunately, we are human and ethics do not apply across the board: one person may have a definition of good, honest business practice while another may not have the same thoughts or intentions. 

If we are to look at a basic idea of a market economy and each manufacturer, retailer, etc. looking to make money, you will see many Business models. For example, a retailer who sets up his store across the street from the first successful retailer and benefits off of his success. Is this ethical? Well, no. However, economics has a funny way of circumventing what is ethical to what the market wants. Taking this simplistic example, if the first retailer continues his success, innovates, adds new products, advertises, etc, he will continue his growth. If the second retailer comes in and is better at it, or sells his goods at lower prices, then he will excel over the first. The Rolex example is interesting because, once again, we are applying some sort of moral judgement to having an expensive watch over a cheaper, perfectly serviceable Timex: personally, I prefer buying authentic, automatic watches, however, a friend once indicated to me that he could buy 3 or 4 imitations and wear a different watch every day instead of having only one watch. To him, it wasn't about the name but price and having many of them. His ethics differed from mine.

Looking at the flashlight clone example: there are companies who originated a great idea, others copy them verbatim, still others innovate and change the original ideas and make them better. Are those who copy or innovate being ethical? What if a company takes an original design, reverse-engineers it, then modifies and improves it? Is that still ethical? We CPF'ers tend to label all Chinese lights as clones or 'bad', yet we have seen innovation from many companies such as Fenix, Zebralight and JetBeam to name a few.

Again, I agree with McGizmo that it is not black and white but shades of gray and you can almost never apply ethics to economics. That is why we have a million coffee shops in our cities now and even more small players in the market - they have seen an originator, thought they could do a better job or offer a better price. This idea of market and lack of ethics also explains why manufacturing is no longer sustainable in North America. If anything, Darwinian theory is more relevant: imitation, innovation, improvement (and, perhaps, resulting lower prices), will always be key to survival.


----------



## Flashlight Aficionado (Jun 25, 2010)

I would like to take this thread in another direction, one that has got me angry. Like Carrot I will not use names.

Company A: makes a great product. There are two problems. First, demand outstrips supply. Secondly, the product itself has to be fitted in person. The first problem causes Brick and Mortar (B&M) stores to not have stock. As soon as they have stock, people come in try them on, buy it and leave. Then they are out again. The second problem causes people to prefer B&M stores.

There are clones out there, but nobody likes them. The fit is wrong, the material is so inferior that the don't wear them. Sometimes they are cheaper and sometimes they are not. Sometimes they are actual forgeries. They are all online.

What I got mad at. People on the internet saying to go to the B&M store, try them on to find your size. Then if the model/style wasn't there, use that information to buy it online from some distributor that Company A: has certified. 

By people spreading this attitude, they are making everyone's life harder. By using the B&M's valuable information (size) you are now able to rip them off. If they went directly to the internet, they would have a few choices, all a gamble. Buy one size and hope you chose correctly. Return and repeat until you get it right. Buy a range and return what doesn't fit.

The internet is so big, that too many local stores have closed. I like to touch and feel a product before I buy. By letting me do this, I will gladly pay them for the experience. I don't hate the internet for buying things. I find it great . . . for things that will never be in a B&M store in my area. Like most flashlights.  Oh, I usually wait for a PhotonFest and buy them there or other hands-on opportunities. Or for things that feeling/touching/comparing is not required.

-End of Rant-


----------



## Sgt. LED (Jun 25, 2010)

I hate clones because they killed the Jedi.


----------



## RGB_LED (Jun 25, 2010)

Sgt. LED said:


> I hate clones because they killed the Jedi.


:lolsign:


----------



## kramer5150 (Jun 25, 2010)

Sgt. LED said:


> I hate clones because they killed the Jedi.



102 posts and we finally have a useful pice of information in this thread.lovecpf


----------



## baterija (Jun 25, 2010)

HKJ said:


> Maybe not, but there are other kinds of protections beside copyright and patent. It is usual possible to do some kind of design protection.



Well there is trademark that can include look if it's "brand dress." Maglite did it with certain elements of their design. Surefire, for example, doesn't appear to have any branding look that is consistent across all or most of their product line. I would be surprised if they had any trademark beyond the logo/name on the light.

It is actually design patents I think you are thinking about that protects the ornamental look of a functional object. It's still a patent. It is broader than copyright because you can infringe even without copying (coming up with the design on your own but after the fact.) It's important that protection isn't automatically granted just because someone creates a new design; the patent must be filed for and granted. I'd be interested if anybody knows of any lights that have a design patent.

That's pretty much it. Patent, trademark, or copyright... and copyright still doesn't apply to any of the threads this topic comes up in.


----------



## GeetarHero (Jun 25, 2010)

Sgt. LED said:


> I hate clones because they killed the Jedi.



ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!! Well done Sir!


----------



## march.brown (Jun 25, 2010)

Brigadier said:


> Bingo. First thing I think to myself when I see a Rolex on someone's wrist is "Real or fake?"


 First thing that I do when I see a Rolex on someones wrist is to smile.

My Seiko Perpetual with the 8F56-00C8 movement has stayed at four seconds slow for over 24 months now ... The battery lasts ten years too ... This accuracy is amazing and it cost less than a service on a Rolex ... No Rolex is this accurate ... My Submariner certainly wasn't.

Some people buy the clones because they can't afford the real thing or can't (or won't) justify the expenditure.

I don't have any expensive torches ... Mine are Solarforces , iTPs , a Romisen plus a few cheapies ... I do have expensive fountain pens (not clones) but I can justify that expenditure in the same way that others do for expensive torches ... Each to their own , I suppose.
.


----------



## cheapbastard (Jun 25, 2010)

baterija said:


> That's pretty much it. Patent, trademark, or copyright... and copyright still doesn't apply to any of the threads this topic comes up in.



Yes you are correct, I made this mistake in my earlier post in this thread. 

Even if the appearance is not protected by a trademark or a patent, I think there is something dishonest and tacky about imitating the appearance of another company's product - it seems like an attempt to fool people or hijack the good reputation of the genuine article. 

For example the "UniqueFire R5" on dealextreme that is a blatant clone of the Lumens Factory SP-6 Seraph. From the review here on CPF it appears the clone is actually quite functional and good value for money but I would never buy it because it just seems absurd - they went through all the effort of replicating an existing product and tooling for mass production when they could have put in a bit more effort an come up with a distinctive design that could stand up on its own merits. The Seraph is a P60 host but the manufacturer has come up with a unique, attractive appearance, reflecting pride in their product.



RGB_LED said:


> We CPF'ers tend to label all Chinese lights as clones or 'bad', yet we have seen innovation from many companies such as Fenix, Zebralight and JetBeam to name a few.



I think these companies are doing it right. They make products that are clearly their own and they put effort into design


----------



## Rocketman (Jun 25, 2010)

I look at and judge every flashlight according to it's merits. I also look at the company and it's integrity. Some companies are trying to make a great flashlight, some are trying to make money. The main focus of the company and their integrity is what I use to judge them by. The product is a reflection of the company.


----------



## leon2245 (Jun 26, 2010)

leon2245 said:


> o.p. what are some specific examples, specific models as example of what you mean? would anyone for instance be against the Fenix Ld15 after the E.Z. & aeon2? because that's just good competition, & i'm all for it.
> 
> or talking strictly identical reproductions, along with printing another's company name & model no.s on the forgeries? that's definitely a problem.


 



still seeing a lot of theoretical talk about clones in purely general terms. nothing concrete, no specifics, & i still don't see actual examples. so get specific if you want the rest of us to hate clones too. i'd like to know if one manufacturer is ripping off another, or circumventing copyright law, or confusing customers with similar names etc.

so again, for anti clone guys, is the LD15 for example a clone of the E.Z. because they look & operate so similarly? If not, what prevents it from being so? and the e.z. vs. aeon2? different enough? becasue since we're not talking strictly 1:1 imitations, then draw the line specifically, illustrate with examples, cite copyright infringement... _something_.


----------



## leon2245 (Jun 26, 2010)

march.brown said:


> First thing that I do when I see a Rolex on someones wrist is to smile.
> 
> My Seiko Perpetual with the 8F56-00C8 movement has stayed at four seconds slow for over 24 months now ... The battery lasts ten years too ... This accuracy is amazing and it cost less than a service on a Rolex ... No Rolex is this accurate ... My Submariner certainly wasn't.
> 
> ...


 

Thank you for your candor m.b. But you don't consider those brands clones, just because they're cheapies? Does anyone here?


----------



## carrot (Jun 26, 2010)

leon2245 said:


> so again, for anti clone guys, is the LD15 for example a clone of the E.Z. because they look & operate so similarly? If not, what prevents it from being so? and the e.z. vs. aeon2? different enough?


I'd say your example is an accurate one of a case of the clones.


----------



## leon2245 (Jun 26, 2010)

carrot said:


> I'd say your example is an accurate one of a case of the clones.


 

great, acknowledging a benchmark is not easy. it could potentially expose other makes you might not have had in mind as clones, if they are equally similar. so thanks for putting that much out there- i'll at least consider your position in future purchases.

i just wish the orignal design, the highest quality, and the most recently updated electronics were all found in the same model at the same time, more often. at any price. when we have to choose two out of those three, i know at least I am guilty of putting who made it first, last.


----------



## csshih (Jun 26, 2010)

the ld15 looks similar, but the mode changing is different.
is UI included in the cloning problem?


----------



## smfranke (Jun 26, 2010)

I may have missed it, but I still haven't seen a good definition of 'clone' from Carrot.

Are people upset about lookalikes or are they upset about counterfeits?

If it's counterfeits then I agree - they're bad. I have no problem with lookalikes that don't pretend to be something they're not.

I consider a flashlight to be a tool. I don't care if my tools are pretty - I want them to be functional at a reasonable price.

Think of a wrench...should each manufacturer add 'flair' just to differentiate themselves? I personally think they should do it through quality, features (or specs) and price.

If Surefire has a legal issue with another manufacturer then they'll sue them - they've done it before.

I recently sold my only Surefire on eBay but I kept my Solatforces. I love my Solarforces.


----------



## march.brown (Jun 26, 2010)

leon2245 said:


> Thank you for your candor m.b. But you don't consider those brands clones, just because they're cheapies? Does anyone here?


 I just said "I don't have any expensive torches" ... I don't know whether they are clones or not ... I bought them because they do everything that I want a torch to do ... These Solarforces and iTPs are all keepers ... My Trustfire F20 is great , but the Romisen RC-U4 is just kept in the car till I decide who to give it to ... Should have got another Solarforce L2 instead of the Romisen , but I put it down to experience ... At least with the Solarforce I can change the dropin ... Live and learn , I suppose.

As far as I'm concerned , if a clone works well at a fraction of the price of the real thing then I'll go with the value for money option (the clone) ... I don't need an ultra-hard coating as I don't mistreat my torches ... I don't need machining to a pico-thou (milli-bohair in Scotland) or better , even though it is nicer and smoother in operation ... Also , I can have several cheapies or clones instead of only one expensive torch ... But that's my personal choice ... The ultimate in absolute reliability doesn't enter into the equation as I always have my two little iTP A3 keyrings with me plus either the iTP A2 (EDC) or a Solarforce L2 (EDC) too ... I have been known to take both EDCs with me (by accident).

"Each to their own" says me !
.


----------



## march.brown (Jun 26, 2010)

JaguarDave-in-Oz said:


> All that time that's spent re-inventing the wheel


 Hi JD ... When you re-invent the wheel can you please invent one that goes flat at the top when it gets punctured.
.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 26, 2010)

As already stated, I believe the underlying forces here boil down to ethics and economics.

Both are subject at times to regulation by presumed objective and impartial governing bodies and at times are subject purely to the perceptions and opinions of the manufacturer and consumer. Both manufacturer and consumer gravitate to a "free market" in hopes of having the greatest opportunity in finding a solution where a sale or exchange is made.

Generally speaking, a consumer is likely more concerned about the ethics and honesty of the manufacturer than the manufacturer is concerned about ethics and honesty of the consumer. The subject title of this thread is a case in point.

As one poster alluded, ultimately it may be the product itself that is of most significant consideration and its source, secondary. I believe this is the case in most instances for most consumers. A typical flashlight buyer would perhaps appreciate the merit of the content of this thread but I doubt any consideration would be made in his selection of a flashlight. To understand the industry to the extent one could even identify the possibility of a clone existing is way beyond his interest or need to know. He would likely not be concerned beyond the perception of honesty and truth in claims made about the light in consideration. Its origin and the source of its design are of no import beyond how they relate to function and reliability. If he likes the song, he could care less who wrote it, who sang it or whether it is a cover.

When I studied economics in college, there was a concept of governing bodies needing to internalize externalities as they related to manufacture and industry. These externalities were costs and impacts resulting from the manufacture and industries which were not born by the manufacturer or industry but by society and the environment involved. Air, water and noise pollution are examples of such externalities. IP theft or infringement is also in a sense an externality. It is a cost to the originator and an advantage to the "thief". Patent law attempts to provide means of either protection or compensation and internalizing the cost, where it belongs. If and where such laws fail, to what extent is it a self assumed duty of the consumer to consider this?

The health and future of any industry depends on the success and satisfaction found in the marketplace by both manufacturer and consumer.

Those resident and passionate about the flashlight industry will view it under much different light than those simply stopping by for an isolated or single buy.


----------



## march.brown (Jun 26, 2010)

HKJ said:


> There are no exact definition of a clone, some people will yell clone, just because a light superficial looks like another light, other will require a more exact look and function.


 Surely a clone is absolutely indistinguishable from the real item ... An exact copy ... If you can tell them apart then it isn't a clone , as it isn't an exact copy ... When they clone plants by vegetative propogation , the clones are identical to the original ... Any different plants would be called sports ... Forgeries are made to look identical and sold specifically to fool the buyer into thinking he has bought the real thing at a reduced price ... A bargain ? ... "Caveat emptor" or something in Latin like that.

So if these "so-called" clones don't have the original manufacturers engraving on them , they are not clones ... I don't think they can be called a copy either as there are usually other differences , so the best description is that they are "similar to some original".

As has been said before ... A torch is only a bit of tubing (for the batteries) plus a bulb holder and a switch ... Is anyone really going to clone that ?

Do you think my ultra-cheap ($4-00) 123 torch is a clone of the well known American torch ? ... After all , it is a little tube and an LED and a switch ... It is absolutely amazing value for money and great to give away to relatives and friends ... Must get another as this one has been stolen by my Wife as it is apparently "absolutely perfect just to throw in the hand bag" ... Not certain if it is a clone as it only has "Super Bright 3W 601" printed on it.
.


----------



## march.brown (Jun 26, 2010)

Per-Sev said:


> And I say because they can wear a Rolex and there proud of it just like buying a McGizmo light if someone cloned it just because it looked like one that does not mean it performed like one. I have owned a real Rolex and seen a fake close up and to me there was no comparison between the two if you know Rolex's you can tell. There are a lot of clones or reproduction out there now and it's just a form of steeling IMO. If you can't afford the originals don't pretend you can you are just acting like someone you are not be proud of who you are it does not matter what you can afford as long as you are true to yourself. I know what it is like to have it and to lose it all in one year and I would never buy a clone just to show off I am what I am a poor man and proud of it.


 I buy a watch to tell the exact time (long term) , so that rules out a Rolex or any other self-winding watch ... My Rolex was about ten seconds out per month ... It needed servicing every five years or so , at great expense ... My Seiko Perpetual has been four seconds slow for over two years and the battery lasts ten years ... I know the exact time with this one which is more than I can say about my beautiful Submariner ... The Seiko stainless steel seems to be harder than the Rolex ... All this in a watch that cost about the same as a service on the Rolex.

I buy my watches to tell the time accurately and I buy my torches to shine a light when I switch them on ... If they do this at a sensible price then I don't mind if they are cheap or even a sort of copy ...
.


----------



## waddup (Jun 26, 2010)

my $15 timex/casio keeps great time, and my $30 flashlight lets me see in the dark.

i do advocate cloning hot women and great steak.


----------



## march.brown (Jun 26, 2010)

waddup said:


> i do advocate cloning hot women.


 Can they all be called Patricia please ... Thats just in case I talk in my sleep ... When I was "Being friendly to other Women" , I mainly helped ladies that were called Patricia ... It worked a treat.

My latest Wife has an unusual name hence the request.

I've just remembered ... The name would not have to be Patricia ... That was an earlier one.

I'm at a bad age for divorce , so just ignore my request for a named clone.

Wouldn't it be great if they just had a number like when I was in the Army.

Ignore the Name and the Rank ... Just give the Serial Number and the Bra size plus the height above sea level !
.


----------



## Per-Sev (Jun 26, 2010)

march.brown said:


> I buy a watch to tell the exact time (long term) , so that rules out a Rolex or any other self-winding watch ... My Rolex was about ten seconds out per month ... It needed servicing every five years or so , at great expense ... My Seiko Perpetual has been four seconds slow for over two years and the battery lasts ten years ... I know the exact time with this one which is more than I can say about my beautiful Submariner ... The Seiko stainless steel seems to be harder than the Rolex ... All this in a watch that cost about the same as a service on the Rolex.
> 
> I buy my watches to tell the time accurately and I buy my torches to shine a light when I switch them on ... If they do this at a sensible price then I don't mind if they are cheap or even a sort of copy ...
> .


My Rolex was very accurate in fact I never had to set it, it would gain a few seconds when I would wear it and when I took it off it would lose a few seconds so it always stayed the same a Rolex is not about how accurate they are but that they are a work of art in there complexity but to compare a Rolex to a Seiko is like comparing a McGizmo to a Maglite there not in the same ballpark. Just like clones there is a reason they copy a good design because it works and there to cheap to design it themselves and they are giving the real product a bad name because now when you sell say your Rolex you have to prove its not a fake. So if clones were not made then there would be no doubt and considering where most of them come from and how they treat there employees I don't choose to contribute to there income.


----------



## divine (Jun 26, 2010)

I thought Rolex was all about certification their time pieces. Isn't that what makes them so expensive?


I know we aren't supposed to get brand specific, but I would like to hear if the porcupine copy is considered a clone. People are saying it has to be a cheap brand that makes a clone.

The original porcupine is from a very well respected company and the copy is from an almost as well respected company and might be better than the original.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 26, 2010)

divine said:


> I thought Rolex was all about certification their time pieces. Isn't that what makes them so expensive?.


the general figure for COSC certfication that's bandied about is about 200 euro per unit. Rolex is about selling exclusivity. It's very easy to buy a watch with equal movement finish, quality, jewel count and cosc certificate and as much "quality" in the case for whole lot less money.


----------



## Rocketman (Jun 26, 2010)

McGizmo said:


> As already stated, I believe the underlying forces here boil down to ethics and economics.
> 
> Both are subject at times to regulation by presumed objective and impartial governing bodies and at times are subject purely to the perceptions and opinions of the manufacturer and consumer. Both manufacturer and consumer gravitate to a "free market" in hopes of having the greatest opportunity in finding a solution where a sale or exchange is made.
> 
> ...



Although I do not at all consider myself an average American consumer, I nevertheless can highly recommend to any consumer anywhere that there is both satisfaction and gain in studying the company who makes the product under consideration. This is so because the product is a reflection of the company.

Now then, this may not be as trivial as it might sound. Consider that such a consumer may not have sufficient knowledge of the product or technology in question. This is why some folk around here say "It's a Surefire, just buy it." This advice doesn't work for me in this case but nevertheless exhibits itself as an example.

As such, I consider your remarks correct and your conclusion wrong. Have a good day.


----------



## 325addict (Jun 27, 2010)

For me, it's just plain obvious, that if you want a field-tested, reliable flashlight that will WORK in freezing cold or enormous heat, you don't go the clone way. In the heat of the game, you won't be so patient to just screw back that tailcap with great precision (otherwise ruining the threads) and pushing in that soft O-ring with your thumb nail when screwing the tailcap further on, otherwise it will be damaged... not to mention sudden <POOF!> of lamps, and loose wires on P60 LED drop ins, or... these LED drop ins just suddenly giving up without any reason whatsoever.
Can you guess what will happen with an XXXXXfire light (SF excluded) on the north pole? I know some people who go there, recording sound etc. and all that counts there is RELIABILITY.

To extend this to knives: when I was a little boy, I bought some "swiss army knife" that clearly wasn't. Within a week, it literally nearly exploded on me, because all the springs were not held together anymore... I went back to the shop, and stupid as I was, I asked for a new one, which I got. You will guess what happened... a week after that, that second knives fell apart also 

That was my second experience like that, before I bought a "fine bright 2X AA black small incan flashlight" for which, after the first lamp did go POOF, where no spare bulbs of course 

Then, I realized I should NEVER, EVER waste my money on these cheap knock-offs anymore. NEVER!
I bought the real ones, an American 2AA incan flashlight "made with pride and care in the USA". I guess you know which one I mean 
I bought it in 1994 or so, and it is STILL alive & kickin' :thumbsup:
The same way with the knife. I bought an original Swiss army knife, which is still in 100% shape after all these years....

Apart from the fact you shouldn't encourage buying clones, as it it indeed supporting a stolen design, it is mainly of low-lower-lowest quality.

This doesn't mean, I regard Fenix, and especially Wolf Eyes, and the like as clones! Look at the original, and at Wolf Eyes... differences come up immediately:
WE lights have been designed from the ground up for the use with rechargeable Li-ion batteries, they have the D36 drop-in system, they designed (as far as I know) the LED-tailcap etc etc.

Yes... definitely food for many thoughts. I also bought some chinese knock-offs, and, being totally unfamiliar with the "real" thing, I once DARED to ask here on the forum: "what's the difference between my XXXX fire and a Surefire?" Luckily, you guys are all very relaxed and didn't just explode from angryness, you just summed it up patiently WHY I should go for the real thing, ending up with a 15 piece SF collection at the moment :thumbsup:
I bought the WF-501B from eBay then and I was totally AMAZED by it's performance. Now, it lays there as a reminder of how this flashlight-crazyness started for me, but it doesn't see any use anymore now, these days.... there's better stuff to lug around 

Timmo.


----------



## kosPap (Jun 27, 2010)

pn the other hand, and by CPF standards, Surefire has hammmpered the evolution of the 6P not going to a 18mm bored body...

So after some time Solarforce turned a clone (L2) to the L2P, in a way way the 6P should be today. HA, 18mm bore, and low crenelated bezel....


----------



## march.brown (Jun 27, 2010)

I thought that it was the battery type that governed what temperature the torch would work at ... A lithium primary will work the same in any torch , as will AAs , AAAs and 18650s ... Even below freezing ... The body on an expensive torch gets just as cold as on a cheapie.

All torches are just a piece of tubing ... What can go wrong with a piece of tubing ? ... Then there is a switch , a simple means of turning the torch off and on ... The switch isn't exactly rocket science is it ? ... Then there is the Head unit containing the LED and driver ... There are millions of these in use ... The majority will no doubt be relatively cheap but still reliable.

So whats with these expensive torches ? 
Ultra-hard coating ? ... Not essential as I do look after my torches.
Glass lens ? ... Nice but not essential. , plastic is sometimes safer.
Metal OP reflector ? ... Nice but not essential ... Plastic works OK.
Perfectly cut threads ? ... Only noticed when you change batteries.
Water-proof ? ... Lubricated O-rings help here , even in a cheap torch.
Springs ? ... A spring is just a spring ... Gold plated is nice , but a contact lubricant works OK.

OK , you might want to clean up a couple of soldered connections and the LED colour might not be perfect , but so what ... For a few dollars you can get another reliable cheap torch.

A cheap torch can be just as reliable as an ultra-expensive torch ... A Mercedes or Rolls-Royce isn't necessarily any better than say a Honda ... My last three cars were Hondas and for over eight years they have not let me down (ever) ... My Mercedes was marginally less reliable than the Hondas and the Rolls Royce only let me down when a fault occured on the radiator ... That was easily cured though.

The same applies to torches ... With a bit of maintenance , even the cheapest will work perfectly ... There again , the expensive torches still need a bit of maintenance.

Posh , expensive torches are just like posh , expensive cars ... Some people like to show (or tell) the World that they can afford "the best" , others don't waste money and yet they still get enjoyment from their purchases.

I realise that I wouldn't buy a hundred cheap torches for the cost of a named torch , but that is because I would only need a few of the cheap ones to last a lifetime anyway.

Long live the cheap torch.
.


----------



## carrot (Jun 27, 2010)

March.brown, would you import a cheap Chinese or Indian car to drive over a Honda? Would you trust it to get to 100,000 miles with limited maintenance?

I have nothing against cheap lights. I just hate clones.


----------



## hoongern (Jun 27, 2010)

carrot said:


> March.brown, would you import a cheap Chinese or Indian car to drive over a Honda? Would you trust it to get to 100,000 miles with limited maintenance?
> 
> I have nothing against cheap lights. I just hate clones.



I'm a bit confused right now - what do we define as a clone? Is it something cheaper than the original which looks the same? Because there are also "clones" which are more expensive than the original (i.e. custom hosts/bodies) which are also American made.


----------



## march.brown (Jun 27, 2010)

carrot said:


> March.brown, would you import a cheap Chinese or Indian car to drive over a Honda? Would you trust it to get to 100,000 miles with limited maintenance?
> 
> I have nothing against cheap lights. I just hate clones.


Tata cars of India now own Jaguar and Landrover since June 2008 ... So some Indian cars are OK.

There are lots of foreign cars imported into the UK that are perfectly reliable ... South Korea send over Hyundai , Kia and SsangYong.

Malaysian cars are also sold over here ... Even MG is owned by the Chinese.

Some of these makes have very long warranties too ... So , I have no problem with these cars.

By far the most unreliable cars that I have owned were my four Fords ... Whereas , so far , the most reliable have been Honda (over 8 years) and SAAB (over 25 years) ... SAAB is now owned by the Dutch Spyker car company.

As far as torches are concerned , well over 90% of all torches are made in the Far East and this will increase over the next few years as "Mister Average Torch Buyer" will go for value for money ... Flashaholics will no doubt still be tempted to go for the ridiculously expensive posh makes of torch ... There is a "bright" future for the cheaper torches.

If a Chinese manufacturer can still make a profit on a one dollar torch , why on earth do the posh manufacturers charge so much for theirs ? ... It won't be long before Governments realise that they are being ripped off by these manufacturers of "silly-money" torches.

My Solarforce L2 bodies with my choice of dropin are only about £22 including delivery ... I don't have all the hassle of drilling the torch body out to accept 18650s either , or of swopping the dropins and switches just to get a good torch ... I know which torch I would go for ... Every time.
.


----------



## smfranke (Jun 27, 2010)

carrot said:


> March.brown, would you import a cheap Chinese or Indian car to drive over a Honda? Would you trust it to get to 100,000 miles with limited maintenance?
> 
> I have nothing against cheap lights. I just hate clones.





One of the worst comparisons ever.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 27, 2010)

Despite my discomfort with the term clone, I would propose that clones exist at all price points from the exotic high end to the check out counter coin cell key chain lights. In fact, there is probably more more market penetration by numbers of clones in the mass market consumer level of flashlights. :shrug:

I assume that Carrot's contempt is focused on the "theft" of IP, design and features as well as likely on the potential of pretense and false expectations associated with a light that looks to be more than it is; often the case when a well designed light is copied in superficial form, only.

Ironically, often the profit margin can be greater for the clone as price is often equated with quality and if you price a turd at the cost of an apple and make it look like one....

I believe an other underlying dynamic here is that of repeat and/or future business. Is it reasonable to suggest that active members of CPF are more likely to buy a flashlight in the future than the general population? Is the actual quality and feature set of a flashlight more of a consideration as it relates to a "known" or "recognized" manufacturer for a CPF member than a typical flashlight purchaser? I would think yes.

To a typical customer, perhaps a SomethingFire Tactical Light is all they are aware of and they may lump all of the tactical fires into one generic category. Beyond a superficial glance, they may know little more or care less.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Jun 27, 2010)

McGizmo said:


> I assume that Carrot's contempt is focused on the "theft" of IP, design and features as well as likely on the potential of pretense and false expectations associated with a light that looks to be more than it is; often the case when a well designed light is copied in superficial form, only.


 
Agreed, and what everyone up to this point has failed to mention or even realize is they have no way of knowing what companies are doing the cloning, aside from the poorest examples where they have made no attempt to make the product even look like their own. How do you know that even the most respected brands do not reverse engineer their competitor's lights to improve on the more subtle and less visible aspects, such as soldering, o-ring quality and placement, lens material, etc.? Why would this be any less heinous, and how are you to prove it? The simple answer is you can't.


----------



## Rocketman (Jun 27, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> Agreed, and what everyone up to this point has failed to mention or even realize is they have no way of knowing what companies are doing the cloning, aside from the poorest examples where they have made no attempt to make the product even look like their own. How do you know that even the most respected brands do not reverse engineer their competitor's lights to improve on the more subtle and less visible aspects, such as soldering, o-ring quality and placement, lens material, etc.? Why would this be any less heinous, and how are you to prove it? The simple answer is you can't.



Surely, as you suggest, aspects of design and manufacture are observed and used, or you might say "copied," in the ongoing evolution of the flashlight. This, I would say, is to be expected.

It is the purpose of this forum to educate and provide for research so that one might make the right choice regarding flashlights and the companies that make them. Which is why I like the internet so much.

Carry on, flashlight soldiers.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 27, 2010)

march.brown said:


> If a Chinese manufacturer can still make a profit on a one dollar torch , why on earth do the posh manufacturers charge so much for theirs ? ... It won't be long before Governments realise that they are being ripped off by these manufacturers of "silly-money" torches.


 
Outside of China, workers are actually paid decent standard wages. Money to make sure plants and factories are meeting safety standards is another reason. Along with various other issues that cut into profits.

Here's another example:
In China, if you work as a construction worker, you don't get paid fully until after the project is completed. However, if the big boss was not able to generate enough funds after the building is finished; workers don't get paid at all. And with the abortion of democracy that took place back in 1989, the construction workers have no legal recourse for collecting what is owed to them. (In China, it's easy to maximize profits.)


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Jun 27, 2010)

Rocketman said:


> Surely, as you suggest, aspects of design and manufacture are observed and used, or you might say "copied," in the ongoing evolution of the flashlight. This, I would say, is to be expected.
> 
> It is the purpose of this forum to educate and provide for research so that one might make the right choice regarding flashlights and the companies that make them. Which is why I like the internet so much.
> 
> Carry on, flashlight soldiers.


 
So are you saying it's ok to copy in an iterative process so long as it is not all at once?


----------



## Per-Sev (Jun 27, 2010)

march.brown said:


> A cheap torch can be just as reliable as an ultra-expensive torch ... A Mercedes or Rolls-Royce isn't necessarily any better than say a Honda ... My last three cars were Hondas and for over eight years they have not let me down (ever) ... My Mercedes was marginally less reliable than the Hondas and the Rolls Royce only let me down when a fault occured on the radiator ... That was easily cured though.
> 
> 
> Posh , expensive torches are just like posh , expensive cars ... Some people like to show (or tell) the World that they can afford "the best" , others don't waste money and yet they still get enjoyment from their purchases.
> .


So let me understand this you buy a Mercedes and a Rolls Royce and you won't spend a few hundred on a nice light. And then you put down someone for being proud of buying something expensive and yet you are telling the world you have bought a Mercedes and a Roll Royce. :thinking:


----------



## TKC (Jun 28, 2010)

*Amen brother!! I am with you. This is an EXCELLENT post!! Thank you for creating it. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:*


----------



## march.brown (Jun 28, 2010)

Per-Sev said:


> So let me understand this you buy a Mercedes and a Rolls Royce and you won't spend a few hundred on a nice light. And then you put down someone for being proud of buying something expensive and yet you are telling the world you have bought a Mercedes and a Rolls Royce. :thinking:


 I didn't have the Rolls Royce at the same time as the Mercedes , but I did enjoy them whilst I owned them ... The Rolls Royce was a magnificent 1938 25/30 in Black and chocolate brown ... I saw the film "The Yellow Rolls Royce" and just had to have one , though not a yellow one ... I sold it after about three years as I had an offer that I couldn't refuse.

After over twentyfive years of SAABs , I bought a Mercedes C class ... Kept it for three years then went on to Honda ... My Wife wouldn't drive the Merc as she thought it was too big.

I most certainly wouldn't waste money on a torch costing several hundred ($ or £) when I can get a fabulous Solarforce L2 or L2i complete with the dropin of my choice , particularly in the beautiful sand colour.

I can see where the money was spent in a car like a Rolls Royce ... The superb leather interior , the superb chassis and the aluminium Hooper bodywork ... The built-in wheel-jacking system ... The dual ignition system , dual fuel pumps , the radiator with the automatic louvres ... I could go on all day about the worlds best car.

But a torch costing hundreds ! ! ! 

Hundreds (£ or $) for a bit of tubing to hold a battery plus a switch and a bulb ... That's all a torch is ... It is not an engineering masterpiece like the Rolls Royce.

Hundreds of £ or $ for a torch ... Excuse me whilst I laugh out loud.

Now a one dollar torch is different ... That is a masterpiece for the price ... And it works great ... I have several.
.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 28, 2010)

march.brown said:


> . . . I can see where the money was spent in a car like a Rolls Royce ... The superb leather interior , the superb chassis and the aluminium Hooper bodywork ... The built-in wheel-jacking system ... The dual ignition system , dual fuel pumps , the radiator with the automatic louvres ... I could go on all day about the worlds best car.
> 
> But a torch costing hundreds ! ! !
> 
> ...


 
You've definitely gotten your point across. Ironically, it's the same one made by every non-flashaholic in the world. Many of them would say, "Why should I spend so much on a Solarforce L2, when for two bucks I can get a flashlight that is bright, runs on more common and less expensive batteries, didn't have to buy it online while waiting for it to arrive, and I can buy several for what you paid for your Solarforce."

I'll even go so far as to say that my G.E., 2D, plastic flashlight had a gorgeous beam. Far better than the one from my 3D Maglite. The G.E. model cost me $1.99, and lasted for 12 years as an around-the-house light. Outlasted my 3D Maglite by several years as a matter of fact. This was back before I knew just what was really out there.

Clearly, utility value is what you look for in a light. And that's fine. I have a Solarforce L2 flashlight myself. It's quite adaquate for many tasks. However, some folks want more than "adaquate." Some folks want extreme reliability. Others want their lights to be artistic *and *functional masterpieces. If they have the funds to spend hundreds on a light, then why does that bother you so much? They're not spending your money. Their spending won't cause Solarforce to suddenly go out of business. So why be upset over it, to the point of insulting them?


----------



## march.brown (Jun 28, 2010)

I just had a look at the price of a new Rolls Royce and it is £268,000 for the 6.7 litre V12 ... The cheapest new Honda 1.4 litre Jazz is almost £12,000 ... So the Rolls is 22 times the price of the Honda ... Having been round the Rolls Royce factory , I realise why they are so expensive ... The amount of care that goes into a Rolls is phenomenol ... It is a huge car and is lovingly created by a team of dedicated staff.

In the UK there are some torches by a well known American manufacturer which I consider to be expensive ... A 10X is £495 , a 9AN is £313 and a M6 is £400 ... No doubt there are other torches that are even more expensive ... My £22 Solarforce with the dropin of my choice is superb value for money ... The 10X for example is 22.5 times the price of my Solarforce.

How can a torch cost this much more ? ... The switch and the head are surely not that expensive to buy , so it must be the piece of tubing that holds the batteries maybe.

When you compare these expensive torches with the $1 torch it puts things in an entirely different perspective ... Surely the machining takes the same time ... It's done on a machine ...The alloy used might be better in the expensive torch , but surely not that much.

I am not interested in the beam colour as long as it is white'ish ... I just want to shine a light at the press of a button ... I certainly don't want to buy a hugely expensive torch and then fit a different dropin and have the body reamed out to take a different battery ... The Solarforce L2 will take any batteries that you desire and there are lots of dropins to choose from ... It is in fact the ideal perfect torch ... I can get 22.5 Solarforces for the price of the 10X ... Or I could get about 700 of the one dollar torches for the same price ... Buying in bulk like that , after haggling , perhaps 1000 torches for the price of a 10X ... Surely this does give rise to thoughts that some ridiculously expensive torches are indeed very much overpriced.

Some torch manufacturers buy in the dropins and switches from a third party , so the development costs are for a piece of tubing ? ... The manufacturers of dropins obviously spend a lot of time and money on developing newer and better LED units ... I don't mind having a last-years model dropin ... I'm going to keep it for many years anyway ... At £8-40 , I don't mind trying additional dropins though I must admit the standard three mode (without strobe and SOS) is perfect.

In the dark , who can tell if the torch is expensive ... It's a tube with a light shining out of one end !
.


----------



## Egsise (Jun 28, 2010)

carrot said:


> First off, I know that a discussion like this can get heated, so I will not name names and I also encourage the rest of you to do the same.........http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.htmlthe uprising of the "Very Personal Computer" ie. current generation smartphones. (To prove that point, I wrote and edited this entire post on my iPhone.)


Clones also mean that some things must evolve, like iphone...
My Nokia N70(released 2005) doesn't have wlan or built-in gps, but it is a smartphone that i can use for websurfing, gps navigator(external bt gps), games(the original Doom, or Lucasarts Indiana Jones etc.) etc etc.

Nokia/Apple, who cloned who? I think there are many lawsuits about that.. :shrug:


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 28, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> Others want their lights to be artistic *and *functional masterpieces. If they have the funds to spend hundreds on a light, then why does that bother you so much? They're not spending your money. Their spending won't cause Solarforce to suddenly go out of business. So why be upset over it, to the point of insulting them?


may I ask where is march.brown insulting torch buyers? 

Per-Sev asked march.brown something along the lines of _"So let me understand this you buy a Mercedes and a Rolls Royce and you won't spend a few hundred on a nice light"_ and as far as I can see march.brown simply answered that question.

His response was "hundreds for a torch - excuse me while I laugh out loud". That's not an insult to anyone who spends wads on a torch, it's simply a statement describing march.brown's personal attitude to the idea of himself spending such a large wad on a torch. He plainly says such an idea would be laughable. That's not insulting anyone else.

He's not alone in his attitude either. If I accumulated enough dosh I'd consider a Rolls Royce but I'd never spend hundreds on a torch, ever. That's just me. I don't care what anyone else does with their dough.


----------



## pulstar (Jun 28, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> Outside of China, workers are actually paid decent standard wages. Money to make sure plants and factories are meeting safety standards is another reason. Along with various other issues that cut into profits.
> 
> Here's another example:
> In China, if you work as a construction worker, you don't get paid fully until after the project is completed. However, if the big boss was not able to generate enough funds after the building is finished; workers don't get paid at all. And with the abortion of democracy that took place back in 1989, the construction workers have no legal recourse for collecting what is owed to them. (In China, it's easy to maximize profits.)



I have to agree with that. Even more, we need to understand something. If we, residents of so called developed world , will really start to pursue our short term financial benefits, wealth of our nations and our standard of living will fall dramatically. I know that my 200$ Surefire isn't 5 times better than some Fenix light, but we all have to understand, how big are western wages, social expenses and so on... Worst case scenario would be that our western companies run out of bussines due to very price competitive asian enterprises. Do you really think that they would then build production plants here and pay almost 4 times higher sum for workers? Where would YOU then work to earn money to afford cheap products from overseas?


----------



## march.brown (Jun 28, 2010)

JaguarDave-in-Oz said:


> may I ask where is march.brown insulting torch buyers?
> 
> Per-Sev asked march.brown something along the lines of _"So let me understand this you buy a Mercedes and a Rolls Royce and you won't spend a few hundred on a nice light"_ and as far as I can see march.brown simply answered that question.
> 
> ...


 Many Thanks JD ... Couldn't have said it better myself.

I also don't care what people spend their money on ... It's their money.

However , I do think that some torch manufacturers are selling their torches at silly money when compared to (for example) Solarforce and iTP.

I will carry on buying my types of torches and the big spenders can carry on buying their torch ... I could never be envious about a torch , but I could about cars.

By the way , I traded my 1967 MGA 1500 (race tuned) plus cash for the Rolls Royce ... The Rolls could out-accelerate an Austin-Healey Sprite though it only did 17 to 19 miles per gallon ... I did thousands of miles in the Rolls ... It looked like a very large Triumph Renown ... Semi-Razor-edged owner-driver sports-saloon was how Hoopers described the body shape ... Now that beats any torch *(in my opinion).*
.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 28, 2010)

march.brown said:


> Many Thanks JD ... Couldn't have said it better myself.


 
The tone of your post in question was clear. Also, yes; you didn't say it yourself. Your response was to basically post the very same thing all over again without actually responding to what I posted as a reply.

It's great that you've found a torch that is ideal for your needs. But keep in mind that if it had not been for Surefire spending a ton of money on R&D, that Solarforce that you love so much and that is cheaper than an actual SF 6P; would never even exist for you to spend so little on. Yeah, a 6P looks very simple. A tailcap, a head, tube in the middle. Yet all of the various "twins" of it didn't exist until Surefire spent the money on R&D. Keep that in mind as you enjoy your cheap 6P "twin."


----------



## red02 (Jun 28, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> The tone of your post in question was clear. Also, yes; you didn't say it yourself. Your response was to basically post the very same thing all over again without actually responding to what I posted as a reply.
> 
> It's great that you've found a torch that is ideal for your needs. But keep in mind that if it had not been for Surefire spending a ton of money on R&D, that Solarforce that you love so much and that is cheaper than an actual SF 6P; would never even exist for you to spend so little on. Yeah, a 6P looks very simple. A tailcap, a head, tube in the middle. Yet all of the various "twins" of it didn't exist until Surefire spent the money on R&D. Keep that in mind as you enjoy your cheap 6P "twin."



By the same logic, should I be mad at all the musicians that "stole" Elvis' act? 

Elvis, borrowed elements from Chuck Berry, and in turn Berry borrowed elements from Elvis. Even as they had 2 different demographics they were trying to appeal to. There is a difference between IP issues and look-alikes. One can argue that it takes greatness to inspire progress, just as Elvis inspired what we now call rock and roll. Surefire was not interested in having support for 18650s, so Solarforce stepped in and made improvements to the 6P to that end. I would be convinced if the L2 was an exact clone, but its not. The L2 is functionally different and had Surefire come out with a 18650 capable host it would be considered a radical and surprising step away from their long held tradition.

That said any infringement of Surefire, Fenix, or other patents is wrong and I doubt there are many here that would the opposite.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 28, 2010)

red02 said:


> . . .I would be convinced if the L2 was an exact clone, but its not. The L2 is functionally different . . .


 
Really??

That's more than a bit of a stretch. I have an L2 host, and a couple of 6Ps. A wider, inner, tube does not equal "functionally different." You can toss a 17670 cell into a stock 6P, and run the very same aftermarket drop-ins as an 18650 compatible L2 host. (BTW, the early L2 hosts weren't bored out to fit an 18650 cell. I know because I have one of those early L2 hosts.)

The only difference between using an 18650 vs. a 17670 is several minutes of extra runtime. Sorry, but that's not even close to being functionally different. 

Also, the fact remains; no R&D by Surefire = No 6P = No less expensive Solarforce clone of the 6P.


----------



## waddup (Jun 28, 2010)

arnt all flashlights 'clones' of the first caveman/woman that discovered fire?

did he/she ever get any monetary compensation for their fine work?

or file a patent



:thinking:


----------



## drmaxx (Jun 28, 2010)

Very interesting topic. I guess most important point are already put up for discussion.
Nevertheless, you might enjoy this talk about the fashion industry, where rip-offs are rampant and copyright protection hardly existing:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html

Bottom line: 'Cloning' made the fashion industry highly innovative and propelled it into one of the mega businesses globally.


----------



## daimleramg (Jun 28, 2010)

Here's a prime example...


Men's boot cut slim fit D&G jeans $500.00

Men's boot cut slim fit Buffalo jeans $100.00


Both are the same cut same color same design but D&G designed the jeans first and Buffalo copied it which one are you gonna buy?


----------



## waddup (Jun 28, 2010)

daimleramg said:


> Here's a prime example...
> 
> 
> Men's boot cut slim fit D&G jeans $500.00
> ...



ive heard kalvin klein (his jeans are $350) wears levis ($40)

so what kind of person is happy to pay 400% more for a name?


----------



## march.brown (Jun 28, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> The tone of your post in question was clear. Also, yes; you didn't say it yourself. Your response was to basically post the very same thing all over again without actually responding to what I posted as a reply.
> 
> It's great that you've found a torch that is ideal for your needs. But keep in mind that if it had not been for Surefire spending a ton of money on R&D, that Solarforce that you love so much and that is cheaper than an actual SF 6P; would never even exist for you to spend so little on. Yeah, a 6P looks very simple. A tailcap, a head, tube in the middle. Yet all of the various "twins" of it didn't exist until Surefire spent the money on R&D. Keep that in mind as you enjoy your cheap 6P "twin."


 
It would seem that Surefire and all the other torch makers have copied from Eveready !

[SIZE=-1]The flashlight was invented in 1898, and the biblical quote of "Let There Be Light" was on the cover of the 1899 Eveready catalog.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The original owner of the American Eveready Battery Company, Joshua Lionel Cowen, abandoned the hardware company to pursue his real passion of trains ... Cowen was an inventor of sorts ; he developed a fuse to ignite photographic flash powder ... Though the invention failed in its intent , the U.S. Navy bought up the fuses to use with underwater explosives ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Cowen next came up with an idea for a decorative lighting fixture for potted plants : a metal tube with a light bulb and battery that could run the light bulb for 30 days ... He passed the idea along to one of his Eveready salespersons , Conrad Hubert , along with his company ... Hubert turned the metal tube, light bulb and battery into the world's first flashlight and began selling the batteries and the flashlight together and also as separate items.[/SIZE]

So my Solarforces are copies of a copy then ... But there again all torches are copies of Eveready torches ... So does it matter if the price is $400 or just $1 ... They are all just copies of the Cowen/Hubert original ... I will stick with my Solarforces and iTPs.

A metal tube with a light bulb and battery ... It's more or less what I said in an earlier post.
.


----------



## waddup (Jun 28, 2010)

The End.


----------



## red02 (Jun 28, 2010)

march.brown said:


> It would seem that Surefire and all the other torch makers have copied from Eveready !
> 
> [SIZE=-1]The flashlight was invented in 1898, and the biblical quote of "Let There Be Light" was on the cover of the 1899 Eveready catalog.[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-1]The original owner of the American Eveready Battery Company, Joshua Lionel Cowen, abandoned the hardware company to pursue his real passion of trains ... Cowen was an inventor of sorts ; he developed a fuse to ignite photographic flash powder ... Though the invention failed in its intent , the U.S. Navy bought up the fuses to use with underwater explosives ...[/SIZE]
> ...


+1

In the words of Howard Stern: "hoo hoo they all rip me off, tell 'em Fred."


----------



## Midnight Oil (Jun 28, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> ...
> The only difference between using an 18650 vs. a 17670 is several minutes of extra runtime....


 
Really? :huh: Is this true for AW cells? We're talking about the 1600mAh of the 17670 compared to the 2200mAh of the 18650, right? Hmm...so 600mAh isn't much at all eh...

Maybe now I will get a Surefire 6P. The only thing that steered me away was no support for 18650s without boring, but if 17670 will do, then...

The other alternatives that I turned down were Fivemega bodies, which are expensive, and custom Surefire bodies by Electronguru, which are uber-expensive.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 28, 2010)

march.brown said:


> It would seem that Surefire and all the other torch makers have copied from Eveready ! . . .


 
Wow! An even more ridiculous stretch than saying a Solarforce L2 host is different than a Surefire 6P.

Okay, based on your logic, your R.R. was copied from the very first steam-powered cars that became popular back before the end of the last century. Yup, exactly the same . . . Just like there's no real difference between the very first flashlight and a Surefire M6. Yup, no difference.

Or, perhaps there is. Perhaps what put R.R. on the map was a reputation for making the most bulletproof-reliable engines in the world. Engines that continue to work reliably decades later, with a minimum of care. Impressive even compared to a modern-day engine. Compare one to what was available back then in terms of competition, and the reliability is downright sick! You'd be lucky if another engine lasted literally a couple of years, with a $#^%load of maintenance. No comparison! Like an ant fighting Godzilla.

And yes, it's the same thing with a modern-day M6 or even a 6P, compared to those first flashlights. Or are you honestly going to post that an LEO from the early 1900's would honestly have a hard time picking between an M6, a 6P, and one of those first flashlights that put out about as much output as a large kitchen match.


----------



## Black Rose (Jun 28, 2010)

Midnight Oil said:


> Really? :huh: Is this true for AW cells? We're talking about the 1600mAh of the 17670 compared to the 2200mAh of the 18650, right? Hmm...so 600mAh isn't much at all eh...


It depends on the current draw of the drop-in.

That 600 mAh extra capacity could translate into about an extra hour of runtime if you are running a drop-in that only draws around 600 mA.

But really it's not that big of an issue.



> Maybe now I will get a Surefire 6P. The only thing that steered me away was no support for 18650s without boring, but if 17670 will do, then...


The 6P is a great light. 

I use AW's protected 17670 cells in my 6P with a single mode Cree XR-E R2 drop-in that draws 700 mA. Gives me around 2 hours runtime.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jun 28, 2010)

And wouldn't AW's cloning of the original protected li-ion cells be an example of the a benefit to the consumers in that the clones are actually much better quality, with better features and further development than the originals?

Or does the fact he paints em black and makes some changes to the way the protection features work somehow mean they ain't a clone?


----------



## red02 (Jun 28, 2010)

Thats a great example.

I think that it by itself debunks the majority if not all of carrot's original points. 

Clones are not evil, there is no reason for irrational hate.


----------



## daimleramg (Jun 28, 2010)

And also with his title saying "(and so should you)"?

What gives him the right to tell us how to think, I dont tell him to go buy clones. We will buy anything we want and there is nothing he can do but rant. Complain all you want but it won't change a thing, except give you high blood pressure.


----------



## Black Rose (Jun 28, 2010)

daimleramg said:


> Here's a prime example...
> 
> 
> Men's boot cut slim fit D&G jeans $500.00
> ...


The $21 Wranglers at Wal-Mart


----------



## SureAddicted (Jun 28, 2010)

Interesting thread.
But, guys (& gals) how about we leave the watches, computers, R/C, matches, restaurants, jeans, cars, phones, elvis and batteries out of this thread. After all it is a thread about flashlights, and it's going to get out of hand it if continues the way it's going.
There are two school's of thought going on, I can see both sides of the arguement, makes for interesting reading.


----------



## daimleramg (Jun 29, 2010)

Black Rose said:


> The $21 Wranglers at Wal-Mart


 
Ah those are levi's 501 clones!


----------



## red02 (Jun 29, 2010)

SureAddicted said:


> Interesting thread.
> But, guys (& gals) how about we leave the watches, *computers*, R/C, matches, restaurants, jeans, *cars*, phones, elvis and batteries out of this thread. After all it is a thread about flashlights, and it's going to get out of hand it if continues the way it's going.
> There are two school's of thought going on, I can see both sides of the argument, makes for interesting reading.



Thats unfair, OP used pcs and cars, why should we be limited in how we can make our point? 

The language of the original post leaves room and I would read it as that OP generally "hates" clones of any kind, not only flashlights.


----------



## Flashlight Aficionado (Jun 29, 2010)

SureAddicted - It is carrot's thread and he mentioned cars and computers in the very first post. He clearly meant clones of any product.

My opinion is that if someone builds it better, with better or different features or uses the existing product as a starting off point, then most people would not have a problem. It is when something is copied to the last detail or a little less to not get sued, then most people have a problem.

If Company A researched, tested, prototyped and finally produced a light. Then Company B else came along and copied it exactly in every single way, but for less money. Could you buy from Company B with a clear conscience? I couldn't because I consider it outright theft, because Company B can only sell it cheaper because Company A spent the money to develop it. If Company B had to start from scratch like Company A did, then it would cost the same.

Where the problem comes in is where to draw the line. Yes, Company B did improve on Company A's product. But they only used better quality material. Then go up from there.

So the new question should be, *"Where do you draw the line?"*


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 29, 2010)

All non-genuine product components that allow the end user to configure an item to suit their individual needs & tastes and are obviously based on some aspect of the original products design (to ensure compatibility) are in a sense cloned parts, are these evil as well? is selling these design theft & as such eroding the original manufacturer's investment return?


----------



## march.brown (Jun 29, 2010)

It's not just torches that are cloned.

http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/06/16/the-playstation-move-is-a-wii-clone-but-its-awesome/

I always thought that cloning was a biological method of producing identical organisms ... An exact copy.
Sort of growing a blob of dna to make a sheep or a plant.






If Solarforce put their own logo on their torches , then they can't be a clone of another makers item ... It has to be identical to be a clone.

It could be a copy of something though.

Anyway , I don't care ... I still love my Solarforces , particularly the gorgeous sand colour.

*By the way Monocrom* , I think you will find that the very first steam powered car was itself copied from a fourteenth century Indian Bullock Cart ... You will appreciate that this would not be classed as a clone as only the wheeled part was copied. 
.


----------



## march.brown (Jun 29, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> All non-genuine product components that allow the end user to configure an item to suit their individual needs & tastes and are obviously based on some aspect of the original products design (to ensure compatibility) are in a sense cloned parts, are these evil as well? is selling these design theft & as such eroding the original manufacturer's investment return?


 Am I cheating when I pay £8-38 including postage for a dropin for my Solarforce ?
.


----------



## GeetarHero (Jun 29, 2010)

JaguarDave-in-Oz said:


> And wouldn't AW's cloning of the original protected li-ion cells be an example of the a benefit to the consumers in that the clones are actually much better quality, with better features and further development than the originals?
> 
> Or does the fact he paints em black and makes some changes to the way the protection features work somehow mean they ain't a clone?


+1!!! I have followed this thread from the beginning and I have to ask, why is it that when a Valid argument like the one above is presented, there no response from the OP???


----------



## fyrstormer (Jun 29, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> So are you saying it's ok to copy in an iterative process so long as it is not all at once?


You better damn well hope it's okay. Tell me, do you like having wheels on your car? How about having the gas pedal on the right, brake in the middle, and clutch on the left? How about having an engine that runs on relatively clean gasoline, instead of hydrated coal powder? If Daimler-Benz still had exclusive rights to their original designs, we'd all be snorting coal soot in traffic every day, and you'd have to take a different driving test for every brand of car.

Intellectual property is a great idea in theory, as are most great ideas, and to be fair every inventor deserves the opportunity to profit from their inventions -- but when it gets to the point that the products of that intellectual property become really widespread, the greater good must come first. That's why patents and copyrights expire, and that's why they should never stop expiring.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 29, 2010)

march.brown said:


> *By** the way Monocrom* , I think you will find that the very first steam powered car was itself copied from a fourteenth century Indian Bullock Cart ... You will appreciate that this would not be classed as a clone as only the wheeled part was copied.


 
I can beat that.

The first time a caveman put a flat platform on a stick balanced between two stone wheels, and pushed it by hand. I believe his name was Og. All hail the true inventor of the automobile. Yay Og!!


----------



## red02 (Jun 29, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> Really??
> 
> That's more than a bit of a stretch. I have an L2 host, and a couple of 6Ps. A wider, inner, tube does not equal "functionally different." You can toss a 17670 cell into a stock 6P, and run the very same aftermarket drop-ins as an 18650 compatible L2 host. (BTW, the early L2 hosts weren't bored out to fit an 18650 cell. I know because I have one of those early L2 hosts.)


Surefire does not design, intend, warrant, or advise the use of rechargeables with any of their lights. With good reason, rechargeables are inherently more dangerous than primary Li-ion cells. Surefire knows this and warns users, explicitly, not to use rechargeables at all. If you break a surefire with a rechargeable battery your on your own. The fact that you can fit a 17670 into a Surefire is coincidence.

Solarforce designs, intends and warrants use with rechargeable batteries. This means Solarforce lights can, by *design*, use 4.2 volt batt, more voltage than a single cell Surefire light is rated for. This also means that their drivers must be different.

This is an important distinction.



> The only difference between using an 18650 vs. a 17670 is several minutes of extra runtime. Sorry, but that's not even close to being functionally different.


This doesn't address the core of my argument. Past 2 amps, maybe. Usually this varies much more and depends on the drive current, LED in question, type of driver, host's heat sinking abilities and host's internal diameter which as you pointed out is different.



> Also, the fact remains; no R&D by Surefire = No 6P = No less expensive Solarforce clone of the 6P.


What do you base the fact that the L2 is a clone? Is the L2r a clone? L2m? these are all variations and improvements on the 6P design

Obviously, but Solarforce did research and development of their own otherwise we would not have these different body types. The question is, did Surefire do enough R&D to make sure that there is room the competing L2 to distinguish itself?


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 29, 2010)

red02 said:


> Surefire does not design, intend, warrant, or advise the use of rechargeables with any of their lights. With good reason, rechargeables are inherently more dangerous than primary Li-ion cells. Surefire knows this and warns users, explicitly, not to use rechargeables at all. If you break a surefire with a rechargeable battery your on your own. The fact that you can fit a 17670 into a Surefire is coincidence.
> 
> Solarforce designs, intends and warrants use with rechargeable batteries. This means Solarforce lights can, by *design*, use 4.2 volt batt, more voltage than a single cell Surefire light is rated for. This also means that they function differently than Surefire lights, for example they need low-batt warnings and such.
> 
> This is an important distinction.


 
Not really. You are forgetting that the main reason Surefire advocates not using rechargeables has nothing to do with the design of the 6P or it's intended use. It has everything to do with Surefire being a company based in America. If a customer gets hurt because they used a rechargeable in a Surefire light, Surefire then is facing a huge lawsuit. But if their lawyers can show that Surefire has an official policy of telling customers not to use rechargeables, then Surefire is less likely to lose. 

The customer used a rechargeable at his own risk. Surefire specifically said not to. Surefire even narrowed the space inside some of their lights to make it difficult for customers to injure themselves by using rechargeables. (Those are all points that an attorney for Surefire will bring up in the event of a lawsuit.)

Solarforce on the other hand is based in China. Good luck suing *any* company in China if you get injured while using their product. Not picking on Solarforce specifically. However, the engineers at both Surefire and Solarforce know that the average customer is not likely to get injured while using rechargeable cells. Especially in a light designed to use just one of them. But in the rare event something happens, Solarforce doesn't have to fear a lawsuit from a customer in America. Surefire on the other hand, does. So once again, they are not functionally different. The first U2 models were indeed 18650 compatible.



> What do you base the fact that the L2 is a clone?


 
I have two working eyes.

I'm sorry, but you can't say with a straight face that the light isn't a clone. I'll give you the variation aspect of certain Solarforce models. Especially the 2AA version. But where are the improvements over the 6P? Both the 6P and L2 can use the same aftermarket drop-ins. Sometimes it's easy to forget that the L2 is mainly sold as a host. No batteries, no emitter, no reflector. Doesn't sound like an improvement over a stock 6P.

Also, Solarforce's variations of the 6P use a reverse-clickie. That sounds like a step backwards rather than an improvement over the 6P. If there was actual improvement over a 6P, that would be one thing. But there isn't any. (And use of aftermarket drop-ins doesn't count since you can use them in a 6P as well.) So they're just clones.


----------



## blasterman (Jun 29, 2010)

DM51 said:


> If you buy a clone, you are rewarding a thief who has stolen a design.


 
That's why we have these things called 'patents'. If a flashlight isn't sophisticated enough to be protected with a patent, then why are we complaining? If something can be CNC'd that easy, why should it be protected? Not all, but most of these lights are made in Asia anyways, so why discriminate because of where the front office is located?

It's the switch mechanisms, boost circuit, and the actual emitter (sometimes) that differentiate the quality lights from the crappy ones. Not the shape of the barrel or it's fancy finish.


----------



## red02 (Jun 29, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> Not really. You are forgetting that the main reason Surefire advocates not using rechargeables has nothing to do with the design of the 6P or it's intended use. It has everything to do with Surefire being a company based in America. If a customer gets hurt because they used a rechargeable in a Surefire light, Surefire then is facing a huge lawsuit. But if their lawyers can show that Surefire has an official policy of telling customers not to use rechargeables, then Surefire is less likely to lose.
> 
> The customer used a rechargeable at his own risk. Surefire specifically said not to. *Surefire even narrowed the space inside* some of their lights to make it difficult for customers to injure themselves by *using rechargeables*. (Those are all points that an attorney for Surefire will bring up in the event of a lawsuit.


I think we agree here (probably just the hypothetical attorney and myself): rechargeables are dangerous and Surefire does not want or intend for them to be used in their lights, well put. 

I do not believe that your reason was the driving reason. Although it must have entered into consideration when the lights were slated to be upgraded to accept rechargeables. Personally, I think that Surefire thought that rechargeables are not dependable enough for military/gov't customers and require too much care and maintainable to have any net benefits. The gov't apparently agrees.

I will not address the reasoning behind that decision any further as I have no knowledge of it and it will lead the argument into unfounded speculation and unprovable opinions.



> Solarforce on the other hand is based in China. Good luck suing *any* company in China if you get injured while using their product. Not picking on Solarforce specifically. However, the engineers at both Surefire and Solarforce know that the average customer is not likely to get injured while using rechargeable cells. Especially in a light designed to use just one of them. But in the rare event something happens, Solarforce doesn't have to fear a lawsuit from a customer in America. Surefire on the other hand, does. So once again, they are not functionally different. The first U2 models were indeed 18650 compatible.
> 
> I have two working eyes.
> 
> I'm sorry, but you can't say with a straight face that the light isn't a clone. I'll give you the variation aspect of certain Solarforce models. Especially the 2AA version. But where are the improvements over the 6P? Both the 6P and L2 can use the same aftermarket drop-ins. Sometimes it's easy to forget that the L2 is mainly sold as a host. No batteries, no emitter, no reflector. Doesn't sound like an improvement over a stock 6P.


I agree, international lawsuits against china usually don't amount to much, however I do not believe this is at issue. Solarforce, or anyone else, must promote their product and its dependability, and they must balance that against the customer demand for bleeding edge emitters and battery types. If I have learned anything on cpf, is that word of mouth advertising works. If your customers are unhappy with your product, the company is doomed. As little fear Solarforce has from American/EU lawsuits, they still have a controlling interest in spreading good reviews about their product and the only way to do that is with quality products.

The type of battery used determines what emitter and driver do, there is no way around that, if its an AA, cr123, 17670 or 18650. Therefore the type of battery used changes the operational aspects of light. The brightness, how much heat sinking it needs, etc. Surefire maximized the emitter for primaries for the previously stated reasons and for their primary customers who is the gov't who cannot depend on rechargeables. Solarforce does not have this restriction and work to meet the demands of the civilian market.

If anything the L2 can accept a wider array of dropins than the 6P because of this.



> Also, Solarforce's variations of the 6P use a reverse-clickie. That sounds like a step backwards rather than an improvement over the 6P.


Variation to one person is an improvement to another, it depends on who's making the argument. I prefer reverse clicky switches. I have no need for a "tactical" momentary switch and am much happier with more levels. This marks another difference between the L2 and 6P.

Most lay people who buy flashlights are not the kind to spend 100+ on a single light, and when they buy they will prefer more modes instead of simplicity and rugged dependability. These are the same people that companies without defense contracts try to target. There are exceptions to this as collectors will buy what they like and become fans.

This goes to the core of who the lights were intended for in the first place. Surefire is a defense contractor first, and if they can make a quick buck off everyday consumers, fine. Solarforce is playing a different game. As I may have mentioned before there is probably a sizeable chunk of a multi-billion dollar appropriations bill that goes to surefire in exchange for their fine service.

This also explains why surefire does not "play the max lumen game".


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 29, 2010)

There really is a lot of gray in this discussion but that doesn't mean there aren't good examples on both sides of the issue. One aspect that I don't think has been addressed specifically is that of emerging "standards" in an industry. Obviously the discussion of 6P drop ins has a foundation on a standard and IMHO, the standard was fine for incandescent lights but falls short in thermal regards for the LED based lights. (The Pelican M6 would have been a better path for LED lights to follow IMHO)

The standard I refer to is that of thread pitch and diameter and head to body mating geometry. Obviously modularity and cross platform adaptability require some form of underlying compliance and standards. When I got involved early on in mods and then new components, I intentionally adopted the "E" series geometry. To the best of my ability, I cloned thread and mating geometry from the SureFire E series lights. My intent was not to beat out SF in any sales of their product offerings but to build on their offerings and presumably in some cases, enhance their sales.

To many intents and purposes, back then, SF was the standard and rightfully so. I saw merit in basing my stuff on their E-series as a standard and did so. Had I the impression that SF considered their mating geometry and thread selection as IP and theirs alone to use, I would not have taken the path I did. I don't know if SF would have been better served had they claimed such geometry on both the E-series and classic series as proprietary nor do I know if existing patent guide lines would have allowed such a claim in the first place. Moot at this point I think.

As a designer and builder, I submit that it is a lot easier to duplicate a known and proven geometry than it is to develop one from scratch.

On one side of the coin, you have obvious theft and infringement on IP that is to the disadvantage and loss of the originator. On the other side of the coin, you have powerful large companies using Patent and IP law to impede the growth of, and entry into, the industry using claims well beyond reason or that which would be obvious to one schooled in the discipline or whatever the verbiage is.

IMHO, right and wrong travel freely and often across any borders or battle lines one might choose in discussions such as these. That does not mean that it isn't in the best interest of the industry for both manufacturer and consumer to attempt to recognize right and wrong and be influenced by their presence.

Unless I missed it, no one has brought the BetaMax VS VHS example to bear here. If I have my facts and recollection right, the superior format or "standard" of the BetaMax lost out to VHS because of IP protection. How or if the consideration of clones fits in is beyond me but the market dynamics and forces were likely similar.

I just stepped away to refill my coffee cup and noticed two male anoles on my rear deck. One was at each end and where they typically can be found but it looked like they were about to engage in a turf battle. I base this on their color and stance. One was also headed across the deck towards the other. I went out and first offered a nice bug to the one who was headed towards the others domain. It took the bug from me and then scooted off back to its normal location. I then went over and fed the other lizard. What does that have to do with this discussion?!?! Well I guess the point is that with both of the lizards well fed, there was no need at the moment for any turf conflict. If there is plenty business for all of the flashlight manufacturers then the pressures of competition both properly managed as well as dubiously surmounted, become less.

I think it is safe to suggest that the LED flashlight industry and market have been on the rise with significant growth in the last few years. As the market becomes mature and slows in growth, I think we will see more aggressive cloning what ever that might entail as well as more aggressive legal actions based on claims of infringement. Obviously the advancement of the art itself will suffer on many fronts and by rights, it might be incremental at best, anyway. The success of those who remain will be to a great extent based on who we have chosen to support during the process.

On the other hand, I may be all wrong and all wet.


----------



## Rothrandir (Jun 29, 2010)

I wish I'd found this thread a few days ago when it was started, there are just too many posts to go through right now.

This is actually a pretty complicated discussion, and there is more going on than might be apparent. Here are some points I'd like to make just to get them out there:

Intellectual property rights are a very important part of a properly functioning economy. Those who innovate must be allowed to recoup their investment so they can continue to innovate. What is the incentive to create new things if you'll go broke in the process?

If there are two identical products, one made in America and one made in China, the American unit will be more expensive. This is a lot more complicated than it seems, as there are many factors involved. Cheap labor is a commonly mentioned excuse for this, and while it is true, there is a lot more going on that that, including reduced cost of running a business (far less environmental regulation, accounting, paperwork, liability), as well as government subsidization. You're paying less "dollars" for a Chinese product, but you're actually paying a lot more than you realize.

Lack of quality control. How many times have we heard of a Chinese factory substituting a cheaper ingredient/component into a product to save money? How often does it happen without us even realizing it? If we're talking flashlights now, just because it works when you turn it on and shine it around for a little while does not mean that when you're in some deep dark cave or in the middle of the wilderness that capacitor or transistor that does not meet spec isn't going to poop out on you.


If only from an economic perspective, buying cheap clone products is not worth the price you pay. When you factor in everything else, It makes even less sense.


----------



## march.brown (Jun 29, 2010)

McGizmo said:


> As a designer and builder, I submit that it is a lot easier to duplicate a known and proven geometry than it is to develop one from scratch.


 Good Evening McGizmo ... I realise that you are a builder of very high quality torches that are (in price) well above any that I own ... My torches include Solarforces and iTPs which are great for my personal use.

I have also bought some ridiculously cheap Chinese torches in single AA , single AAA and also in single 123 size ... These range from about $1 to nearly $4 and all of them so far have worked fine ... I have given some of these away to my children and grandchildren and they are perfectly satisfied with their free gifts.

Do you see the day when the market will be totally flooded by these cheap torches ? ... The possibility is that major supermarket chains will start selling them at these prices and will put a lot of the cheaper-end torch manufacturers out of business.

I saw this happen in the writing instrument market where many British pen manufacturers such as Conway Stewart simply went out of business in the 60s and 70s due to cheaper imports ... Manufacturers such as Lazlo Biro and his ballpoint pen took over and became a household name for the "Biro" ... Fortunately the name of Conway Stewart is back on the market with high quality pens that are made in the UK again.

Do you think that this problem is likely to happen with the cheaper branded torches ? ... What can be done to prevent it ? ... To a very large percentage of people , a torch is a torch and if it is cheaper and still works then that is great !

Luckily the higher end manufacturers like yourself will not be as affected by the appearence of ultra-cheap torches ... Neither will those manufacturers that have government contracts.

As a manufacturer , how do you see the future for torch manufacturers in all the price brackets ?
.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jun 29, 2010)

carrot said:


> I know, right? Everyone is at their best when they're passionate.



or worst.

Easy on the passion guys. You know some arguments can not be won, ever, so don't waste too much time and energy defending your positions. State your positions once then leave them be, and don't respond to baiting type rebuttals. It is ok for someone to disagree with you.

Bill


----------



## headophile (Jun 29, 2010)

both sides in this issue have pretty valid points to me. i am somewhere in between. 

on one hand, i value the fact that today, we can buy very good quality and high-performance lights that are only a fraction of the cost of surefires. fenix, jetbeam, olight etc. come into mind. (not sure if this is what the op meant by clones though.)

on the other, as a flashaholic, i can't help but appreciate lights like the 6p original and the m6 which are now deservedly called classics and a few other surefire models which i think offer some unique features. while i don't engage in the common practice of blindly worshipping the surefire brand as a whole, i do acknowledge that they have produced models that have stood the test of time and earned their rightful place in flashlight history. 

i guess what i'll do in the end is what is always recommended in this forum: buy both.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Jun 29, 2010)

I also hate clowns. They're scary.

What?

Oh.

Nevermind.


Geoff


----------



## smfranke (Jun 29, 2010)

Expensive clowns are not scary. 

It's the cheap ones that I hate ( *& so should you*).

The expensive ones use high-priced makeup from reputable brands. The cheap clowns often use lead based makeup that can rub off on the children or affect the clown's judgement / sanity. That's scary.

The high-priced clowns have usually been to an accredited clown school. These schools teach them how to perform well even when they're feeling ill or the weather conditions are extreme. The low-priced clowns are iffy & often too hung over to show up.

Lastly, the high-priced clowns reinvest performance fees into improving their acts. Balloon animal R&D, poodle training & chiropractic treatments are not cheap. Low-priced clowns aren't concerned with these things. Try explaining to a 5 yr old why his balloon lizard has no legs.

When high priced clowns are forced to compete soley on price their advantages are eroded. They may switch to lead based makeup & skimp on rabies vaccinations for their poodles. Then we all suffer!


----------



## baterija (Jun 29, 2010)

Flashlight Aficionado said:


> So the new question should be, *"Where do you draw the line?"*



My line is at actual infringement of protected intellectual property. Everything else is fair game. From there it's a decision about the lights. A lot of clones cut corners so it's really a price to performance decision. In some cases the clone offers improvements/changes to the original model. For me those are 2 different lights no matter how similar and the company that best meets my needs wins.


----------



## march.brown (Jun 30, 2010)

baterija said:


> the company that best meets my needs wins.


 The majority of the flashlight users/purchasers only need a cheap flashlight ... It is a relatively small minority that would consider build quality and reliability as highly desireable or essential ... The average man/woman in the street will buy a flashlight because it is cheap and it works OK ... You press a button and the light comes on ... They may select one that is brighter , to suit their needs , but unless they are a flashaholic , they wouldn't know much about the better torches.

I have a large number of friends plus relatives and none of them know anything about torches and batteries ... The lucky few have better torches than the rest because I have bought them as gifts ... If you give people torches as gifts , they normally wouldn't consider it to be an expensive present ... The only torches that they see are in supermarkets for a few dollars ... They don't realise how much a torch can cost.

When you say "the company that best meets your needs" , you are thinking as a person who has knowledge about flashlights ... Others needs may purely be based on low cost.

My own choice of torches is based on value for money , which (for me) eliminates the expensive torches ... I choose from Solarforce and iTP mainly because they are , to me , well made and reliable and good value for money ... Whether they are clones or copies , or whether they infringe any copyrite or patent I don't know ... They meet my needs.

You say "_My line is at actual infringement of protected intellectual property_"... Is there a list somewhere that shows flashlight models that actually do this ? ... I genuinely don't know enough about this and would be interested to know ... I suppose that it would be difficult to prove it as many of the manufacturers have R&D departments working on improving their products.

Are there any blatant copies that we should know about ? ... If there are any , perhaps we should bring them into the light ! (pun intended) ... Obviously we don't want to get involved with any legal issues due to this.
.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 30, 2010)

march.brown said:


> .....
> As a manufacturer , how do you see the future for torch manufacturers in all the price brackets ?
> .



march.brown,
Your guess is likely as good as mine and possibly better. I think CPF represents a niche market in a presumably much larger market of flashlights. I dwell in a very small niche within CPF and yet I see more and more "competition" .

I think the CPF flashlight market is demand driven. Some demand low price some demand specific features and the use of specific LEDs. CPF customers know or believe they know what they want and they know where to look. They are not limited to brick and mortar nor are they limited by country of origin. I don't think CPF is a viable gauge for the larger market.

I would guess that the average flashlight buyer responds to a supply based market and doesn't have any real designs or specific demand to be met. If this is true, it will be up to the big box stores and internet giants what manufactures get the business. These decisions are likely based on criteria that may or may not be in keeping with what we might cite as important. I imagine profit margin, dependability of order fulfillment, frequency of warranty claims and other aspects involved in running a large and active business will be key factors.

Until the technological advancements in LED performance and efficacy level off I think it will be difficult to get an idea of how the industry is going to evolve.

I am personally concerned that at least in the US we consumers are still placing too much of a premium on low price and I see this bring us short lived and disposable goods whether we wish to dispose of them or not. On the other hand, we have PK at the helm of a company like ICON where quality control and solid design is merged with low cost production and price sensitive target markets. I would guess that there are honest and viable flashlights at $5 and $500. There are also those that fall well short of the mark and again at all price levels.

The big customers for flashlights are not end users like members here. They are purchasing agents for Costco and Wallmart and HomeDepot and so forth.

There is a lot in flux these days!!


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Jun 30, 2010)

baterija said:


> My line is at actual infringement of protected intellectual property. Everything else is fair game.


 
I agree 100% with your statement. And yet ARC, despite having lost a court case of infringement upon intellectual property, remained a fanboy favorite on CPF.:thinking:

It makes you wonder whether some people just have it out for certain brands and labels, even if they aren't mentioned by name.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 30, 2010)

Just because you get sued, doesn't mean instant lose of respect. The head of a certain flashlight company is well known for his sue-happy antics. Sometimes justified, sometimes not. And by _not_, I mean bordering on a delusionary level of belief that he's invented every innovative feature that exists *and *will exist sometime in the future.

Sometimes it's the company doing the suing that loses respect.


----------



## Brigadier (Jun 30, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> I agree 100% with your statement. And yet ARC, despite having lost a court case of infringement upon intellectual property, remained a fanboy favorite on CPF.:thinking:
> 
> It makes you wonder whether some people just have it out for certain brands and labels, even if they aren't mentioned by name.


 
+1



> I have two working eyes.
> 
> I'm sorry, but you can't say with a straight face that the light isn't a clone. I'll give you the variation aspect of certain Solarforce models. Especially the 2AA version. But where are the improvements over the 6P? Both the 6P and L2 can use the same aftermarket drop-ins. Sometimes it's easy to forget that the L2 is mainly sold as a host. No batteries, no emitter, no reflector. Doesn't sound like an improvement over a stock 6P.
> 
> Also, Solarforce's variations of the 6P use a reverse-clickie. That sounds like a step backwards rather than an improvement over the 6P. If there was actual improvement over a 6P, that would be one thing. But there isn't any. (And use of aftermarket drop-ins doesn't count since you can use them in a 6P as well.) So they're just clones.


 
+1. If it weren't for the 6P, would Solarforce even exist?

IMO, looking at an L2 next to a 6P I see a 'clone'. Now, put a Jet-III M next to a 6P, nope.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Jun 30, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> Just because you get sued, doesn't mean instant lose of respect. The head of a certain flashlight company is well known for his sue-happy antics. Sometimes justified, sometimes not. And by _not_, I mean bordering on a delusionary level of belief that he's invented every innovative feature that exists *and *will exist sometime in the future.
> 
> Sometimes it's the company doing the suing that loses respect.


 
i think you just proved my point. You opinion of the two companies is set and I don't see how anything I would say would change that, regardless of facts.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jun 30, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> i think you just proved my point. You opinion of the two companies is set and I don't see how anything I would say would change that, regardless of facts.



Or one could take a neutral position because all the facts are not known, and or I don't care one way or the other.

Bill


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Jun 30, 2010)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Or one could take a neutral position because all the facts are not known, and or I don't care one way or the other.
> 
> Bill


 
The fact we all know is that ARC had their day in court and lost. Being raised the way I was and having the background I do, I tend to put faith in the justice and court system of the United States of America. Given that, and absent any conflicting information, I will tend to believe the cases as they were decided and treat it as though the judge and jury made the best decision based upon the available facts.

Your opinion seems to be contrary to that position - you seem to believe absent any additional facts and information, the decision must be wrong. If your first instinct, absent any intimate facts or knowledge about a case, is that it was decided incorrectly, you must also carry the belief that the entire US legal system is injust, flawed, and corrupt to its core. If that is the case then so be it, you are entitled to your opinion, but once again this reinforces my position that some will believe what they wish to, and any debate on this topic is pointless.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 30, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> The fact we all know is that ARC had their day in court and lost. Being raised the way I was and having the background I do, I tend to put faith in the justice and court system of the United States of America. Given that, and absent any conflicting information, I will tend to believe the cases as they were decided and treat it as though the judge and jury made the best decision based upon the available facts.
> 
> Your opinion seems to be contrary to that position - you seem to believe absent any additional facts and information, the decision must be wrong. If your first instinct, absent any intimate facts or knowledge about a case, is that it was decided incorrectly, you must also carry the belief that the entire US legal system is injust, flawed, and corrupt to its core. If that is the case then so be it, you are entitled to your opinion, but once again this reinforces my position that some will believe what they wish to, and any debate on this topic is pointless.



No reason to debate indeed. If this was the case where Mag contended that the Arc AAA infringed on the Mag Solitare sure, no real differences between those lights.  

If anything this could be a case in point that a presumed clone (Arc AAA) because of its obvious similarity was in fact a new level of quality and performance and at its core, completely different than what it seemed to be.

In its simplicity, a light _can_ be a metal tube host to battery and light source. The Solitaire and Arc AAA both fit as simple examples and surprisingly had similar appearance.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Jun 30, 2010)

I got an interesting email this week, what desktop computer should I buy if I want something reliable as #1, fairly quick and quiet. I told them to build their own since the Dell/HP/Apple crew basically outsource everything to china and cheap parts rule. 

Alas, he wanted a parts list so I basically listed all overclocker parts with the video card being something from the "silent computing" list (heat pipe monster heat sink) The motherboard glistens with monster heat sinks on the VRM modules, huge heat sinks on the Northbridge/Southbridge chips and even the Crucial memory has heat sinks on the thing. He will run the quad core at the slowest speed available (2.66 GHz) since the stock Intel heat sink is made for the entire line and will keep it cool. 

The case runs two 120mm fans that are adjustable in output while the BIOS is adjustable in how to control fan speeds according to temperature VS noise. Has USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 to do with eSATA and SATA 6 connections and the BluRay drive has 4MB of cache. Even talked him into getting a Trippe Lite surge suppressor made out of aluminum with isolated outlets to protect the thing. 

The parts are not cheap! Asus motherboard $130 Foxconn motherboard $43... the 500w power supply I spec'd was $70 and the exotic heat pipe cooling system on the video card pushed the price up over $40 over a typical cheap fan thing. Good memory $120, garbage memory $70 so it all adds up. 

The problem with cheapo stuff is this: sometimes industry goes so cheap for such a long period of time that they can't make good stuff anymore. It is getting close to that with computers, you have to buy overclocker or server grade parts to have a computer run reliably for longer than 3 or 4 years. 

The problem with flashlights is the LED technology is moving so fast, if you use it after 2 years that is rare. My Peak Red/UV lights have held up for going on 6 years now and I'll keep using them until they die (2020?) I would think that once LEDs exceed 200 lumens per watt, then you can buy a high quality light and use it for the next 10 to 20 years without issue. 

I stopped off at a Honda motorcycle dealership and they showed me a $10K+ cruiser complete with chrome plated plastic and a plastic fender. Yeah, that will be a mess in 5 or 6 years but maybe it was meant to be disposable? My Nissan has plastic parts in the radiator construction so I guess everything is meant to die in 5 years? 

Lovin' those laptops and phones without removable batteries... they look pretty but... more disposable junk I guess. Looks, thin, cheap trumps usability, reliability and common sense yet again. Next year when it is time to replace the Nokia, guess I have to look up "ruggedized phone" on the net and see how much one of those runs.


----------



## Monocrom (Jul 1, 2010)

McGizmo said:


> No reason to debate indeed. If this was the case where Mag contended that the Arc AAA infringed on the Mag Solitare sure, no real differences between those lights.
> 
> If anything this could be a case in point that a presumed clone (Arc AAA) because of its obvious similarity was in fact a new level of quality and performance and at its core, completely different than what it seemed to be.
> 
> In its simplicity, a light _can_ be a metal tube host to battery and light source. The Solitaire and Arc AAA both fit as simple examples and surprisingly had similar appearance.


 
Thank you. You put that better than I could.


----------



## carrot (Jul 1, 2010)

I would submit that "the good stuff" can be found in varying price ranges and that OP does not necessarily mean you should avoid buying inexpensive things. However, as McGizmo eloquently put it, my main beef is:


McGizmo said:


> I assume that Carrot's contempt is focused on the "theft" of IP, design and features as well as likely on the potential of pretense and false expectations associated with a light that looks to be more than it is; often the case when a well designed light is copied in superficial form, only.



As it happens I would agree with McGizmo on many of the other points he has made and I apologize to anyone who seeks acknowledgement from the OP. 

I was off camping for three days and during that time it seems this thread has run quite well on its own and is somewhat beyond my ability to reasonably reply to many parties involved. Of some interest, perhaps, is that I found a $40 USA-made light to be the only one I needed for camp chores and some night hiking, much to the dismay of more expensive and more "exciting" lights, should they be personified.

I found one post particularly irritating and in need of addressing: 


GeetarHero said:


> +1!!! I have followed this thread from the beginning and I have to ask, why is it that when a Valid argument like the one above is presented, there no response from the OP???



Do you feel it is Your Duty to call out the OP on not visiting CPF for a few days, and subsequently not being able to respond to a post that you find particularly thrilling? I would humbly suggest that this thread is not mine, as it were, but a thread now belonging to the people of CPF. I am merely a person who had a thought that seemed worth expressing to the community at large, for discussion and for introspection.

In any case I will entertain your question with a (very) brief history lesson:

The man (and a friend) who originally invented the RCR123 that so many of you enjoy today spent thousands and thousands of his own money, out of his own pocket, to develop a safe, effective, and reliable solution, only to be backstabbed by the overseas manufacturers he contracted to make them. Instead of delivering the product as agreed, realizing how valuable it was, they took his chemistry and design and cranked them out without so much as an acknowledgement or a dollar to the man who designed them, squashing innovation and a brilliant mind in one go.

Fast forward to today, said man has defaulted on his house, had to give away his dogs, was dumped by his fiancée, and now lives barely paycheck to paycheck. This man is one of the smartest guys I know, and he had a lot of other industry-changing ideas that he had on his plate at the time as well as some awesome lights licensed from famous makers that he would have made, but his hopes and dreams and financial stability were all destroyed by unethical manufacturers who copied his original design. I'd bet, had he managed to make all the things he'd planned, each one would be at or near the top of every flashaholic's must-have list.

Now, I hadn't even considered this story when I'd originally posted the thread, but it rolls right in with Why You Should Support Innovators and Not Thieves.

As to whether AW is a clone or not, I couldn't say. I don't know the technical specifics of his batteries and how they differ or do not differ from other brands of batteries. I do know that, since the originator's batteries & chargers (which were apparently the best, from user anecdotes) are no longer made, AW is currently considered the best of what we can have, and as far as I am concerned, will have to do.

Regarding some matters brought up by others, especially Egsise, I should like to think that a product is not rip-off, clone, or what-have-you, if it innovates or otherwise substantially improves on the original. That is the natural progression of technology, and how we have gotten so far. I do not believe in supporting products whose mere existence is to simply undercut another product, as more clearly outlined by McGizmo above.

Egsise, you chose to argue that Nokia clearly defined the Very Personal Computing market with their smartphones in the early 2000s. My rebuttal would be that they were much too ahead of their time (before cloud computing and the rise of the web as a computing platform rather than a consumption platform) and that their implementation was poor (Symbian can be incredibly daunting for most users). Apple very clearly improved and innovated on the smartphone and PDA (of which there were many, including but not limited to 3Com/Palm, Psion, Handspring/Treo, Casio and Sony) by offering several key things: a User Interface and User Experience that was polished and ready for the masses, a fully capable web browser (anyone remember WAP?), a purely touch-based and gesture-based interface and finally, breaking the cell carrier's stranglehold grip on the handset. You, or anybody else may hate the iPhone, controversial it may be, but it is hard to ignore the industry-shaking effects it had/has, which the Nokia did not. To me, that is innovation, and is quite simply, why the iPhone is not a clone. But enough of phones...

drmaxx: With regards to the TED Talk on the fashion industry: I did see, and enjoyed that TED Talk before starting this thread. However, I believe it to be different because the primary driving force in the fashion industry is in aesthetics and defining a style and not necessarily pushing technology forward, although the push of technology is a side effect of keeping one step in front of the clones. On the other hand, having to keep ahead of the clones can indeed be a driving force to push innovators out of the woodwork and into the limelight where they must perform at their best, which relates to pretty much any industry. So surely, clones do have some place in an industry, but left unchecked I believe they can put a serious damper on innovation and the progress of R&D.


----------



## Monocrom (Jul 1, 2010)

*To: carrot ~*

It is indeed terrible what he has gone through. I know who you're speaking of. Quite a few CPFers do. But just like his experiences with a certain bag-maker, I didn't know how badly things got for him. Thank You for presenting a clear outline of what took place.


----------



## Black Rose (Jul 1, 2010)

Monocrom said:


> *To: carrot ~*
> 
> It is indeed terrible what he has gone through. I know who you're speaking of. Quite a few CPFers do. But just like his experiences with a certain bag-maker, I didn't know how badly things got for him. Thank You for presenting a clear outline of what took place.


+1 

I knew he was the creator but was not aware of that aspect of the story (design theft). Truly a shame.

Another example along those lines, would be the Lumens Factory Seraph SP-6.

Within months of being released, there were clones on the market.
When Mark from LF found out, he was not impressed.


----------



## Brigadier (Jul 1, 2010)

Black Rose said:


> +1
> 
> I knew he was the creator but was not aware of that aspect of the story (design theft). Truly a shame.
> 
> ...


 
Holy crap. IMO, that is just blatant stealing!!!! :scowl:

Another reason I will NEVER order from that site.


----------



## drmaxx (Jul 2, 2010)

carrot said:


> drmaxx: With regards to the TED Talk on the fashion industry: I did see, and enjoyed that TED Talk before starting this thread. However, I believe it to be different because the primary driving force in the fashion industry is in aesthetics and defining a style and not necessarily pushing technology forward, although the push of technology is a side effect of keeping one step in front of the clones. On the other hand, having to keep ahead of the clones can indeed be a driving force to push innovators out of the woodwork and into the limelight where they must perform at their best, which relates to pretty much any industry. So surely, clones do have some place in an industry, but left unchecked I believe they can put a serious damper on innovation and the progress of R&D.



I think that this a very good description of the copyright protection dilemma. The right amount of protection to foster new products and not to hamper competition.

What I think is fascinating about the fashion industry is that it is _centered around aesthetics and style_. Looking at clothing as an engineer, I would have emphasized other qualities. Just imagine an engineer who patented clothing - it probably would have never got where it is now: one of the big business in this world and everybody would look like the Chinese during the Mao era. (May be it would be better it would not be there, but that's an other discussion). 

Bottom line: I think clones have their place in the flashlight business. Annoying as it sometimes is.


----------



## IMSabbel (Jul 2, 2010)

BentHeadTX said:


> I got an interesting email this week, what desktop computer should I buy if I want something reliable as #1, fairly quick and quiet. I told them to build their own since the Dell/HP/Apple crew basically outsource everything to china and cheap parts rule.


And where do you you think all the parts you suggest are coming from?

PS: Having build my own computers for more than 2 decades: Your "cheap" foxcon build Dell/Apple/HP will be MUCH more reliable than something build together from overclocker parts....


----------



## march.brown (Jul 2, 2010)

It is a good job that Torches are not like Printers.

My Epson printers use ridiculously priced Epson ink cartridges ... Epson put chips on all their cartridges and when you put a cheap cartridge into the printer , it won't accept it ... I don't use Epson cartridges because they only hold 5ml of ink ... I use other manufacturers chipped cartridges with the latest self-resetting chips ... They hold 18ml of ink and are obviously better when you are doing a lot of photographic printing.

Epson and other manufacturers have in this way deliberately tried to prevent the freedom of choice of printing ink ... Inks are available that are actually better than the originals and you can choose from pigment inks or dye based inks depending on the type of paper you use.

When my present stock of non-Epson cartridges are used up , I will be buying the refillable empty cartridges with the bulk ink of my personal choice.

Anyway , how would it be if the torch manufacturers demanded that you used their suggested batteries which were chipped accordingly ? ... Luckily this has not yet happened.

Luckily for myself and other printer owners , it only takes a few months for the "non-genuine" ink cartridge manufacturers to copy the chips ... Some of these "non-genuine" manufacturers send the latest "cloned" chips out with your cartridges ... You just stick the chips on the new cartridges as needed ... They will just peel off and fit on the next cartridge at the next cartridge change.

Epson printers are sold as loss-leaders , as the average printer user will buy seven sets of ink cartridges during the life of the printer ...A genuine set of cartridges costs half the price of the printer ... No wonder people buy non-genuine cartridges fitted with the latest chips , particularly as they are not only much cheaper but they hold more ink.

Epson (and others) don't sell refillable cartridges ... Now that's a shame.
.


----------



## carrot (Jul 2, 2010)

That's no different from safety razors. In fact, Gillette is very well known for this -- it's called the razor and blade business model.

In fact, rechargeable camera and cell phone batteries are often proprietary, except they don't plan to sell you extra batteries. What you may recall is a few years ago all the people getting burned by exploding cell phone batteries... using cloned/aftermarket/non-authorized batteries!

So what's your point?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 6, 2010)

carrot said:


> In fact, rechargeable camera and cell phone batteries are often proprietary, except they don't plan to sell you extra batteries. What you may recall is a few years ago all the people getting burned by exploding cell phone batteries... using cloned/aftermarket/non-authorized batteries!
> 
> So what's your point?



I remember DELL laptops catching *fire* WITH propriety batteries too


----------



## Remembertheslap (Nov 20, 2021)

Counterfeit: Exact (visual) copy, _intended to decieve_. Workmanship of lesser quality.

Clone: Exact copy in all respects minus the branding.

Knockoff: Exact or very close (visual) copy minus the branding. Workmanship of lesser quality.

In any given product there is only so much variation possible before the practicality of the product is impacted. Market forces eventually find a balance between cost and function and the product becomes generic. Form follows function. The differentiator of value is in the workmanship. The a reason all wheelbarrows, spoons, shoes, and spectacles look pretty much the same is the design was optamized over hundreds of years. Incremental improvement is then driven by better materials, rather than design.

With flashlights, the design apex was achieved by maglite. Value increase is in the details - the internal hardware and software and the quality of materials and their assembly...


----------



## bykfixer (Nov 20, 2021)

Good bump. 

Way back in the stone age of flashlights the big companies made tubes that put out light in order to make money off their batteries. At one point in the depression Charles Burgess (the guy who patented the C and D sized casing and formula inside for a good while) gave away Burgess tubes in order to sell Burgess batteries because the company was nearly bankrupt. It worked. 

To this day the "cheap tube" by battery makers still come loaded with their brand of fuel cell in order to coax a public who still use alkalines to buy their brand. Only recently have some begun to release lights made to recharge via usb port. 

Also back then clones existed. Yet most were quickly halted or the factory forced to produce the authentic brand instead. But that was before over seas production was the norm so a factory in Idaho producing a knock off would be sued and if that company lost they'd either pay a large sum of cash or produce X dollars worth as a settlement. 

Not anymore. PK told me once he started seeing clones of his items before he had even released his it was time to go under the ground and design things in secret. It's one reason he has seemingly disappeared. 

When I was buying camera gear I saw really nice tripods by a new company for 1/3 the price of the big brands. It turns out one of the big players had gone to a factory over seas and while showing their designs to a potential manufacturer their blue prints were being secretly copied. And before the manufacturer had begun churning out the big companies newest product (carbon fiber tripods) another company (for 1/3 the price) had popped up and began selling nearly the exact same product with just enough difference in appearance to not be a direct copy. 

I did not buy from either brand. Brand one had decided to produce products at really cheap rates but still charge sky high prices. Company two was a thief in my view. They are both since out of business. 

Now to Maglite being the pinacle, as a lad Tony Maglica had lived in a time and place where the next meal was a big deal. So he had learned the value of thinking ahead. Mag Instruments was a machine shop that made brass casings for the US Navy for shells that fired those giant bullets from a ship. His casings were known for having superior craftsmanship and never jammed long before CNC. In the late 1960's and early 70's he was asked to assist in making tailcaps for Kel-Lite who had way more demand for products than their meager shop could produce. 

One day Kel-Lite owner Don Keller was forced out of his own company in '73. In '76 he teamed up with Tony who had ideas and resources to go all in on producing flashlights. By 1979 the Maglite was being produced. It hit the flashlight world like an atomic bomb. By 84 Tony was fighting off the copy cats and patent kleptos. Streamlight had bought Kel-Lite by then. 

Now ironically Streamlight was producing items vastly similar to Maglite products without actually infringing on patents. Yet when they stamped "excalibre" on the bezel of a 2D flashlight Tony took them to court and won. Tony had patented the stamped flashlight bezel. It nearly wiped out Streamlight who survivied by producing a light similar to the SureFire 6P called "scorpion". 

Another really smart guy, Dr John Matthews had developed a pistol laser site for the US navy. He sold the design and concept to the US government. He also played a role in developing firber optic cable. That was a joint venture where he ended up like Don Keller, forced out of his own company. At the time Maglite (with Don Kellers help) had begun making the krypton light bulb. Dr John Matthews started a company called Laser Products with the intention of producing pistols and flashlights for said pistols. Not mounted like we see today, but small and as bright as those giant Maglites. He used camera flash batteries and bi-pin krypton bulbs glued to a module made to withstand being dropped. 

When his idea began taking off he too was like Kel-Lite, more demand than supply. He ended up buying his bulbs from Streamlight for a time. Now his silent (twisty) switch idea was adopted from a Just Rite 2aa aviator light from the Vietnam era. Then one day a young college graduate answered a want ad to make enough money one summer to go surfing with his college pals in Brazil. He ended up staying at "Laser Products" and never made it to Brazil. 

Dr John Matthews had a revenue stream from his previous inventions and used it for R&D. Now unlike Maglite that took off quickly, the Laser Products number called SureFire did not imediately take off. They were expensive to own and operate. A big ole Maglite was $20 and bulb and batteries lasted a good while. Plus those were cheap. The over driven SureFire bulb and those $1 each camera batteries meant a low wage beat cop could not afford them. 

Eventually Laser Products was renamed SureFire and the young engineer became known as PK. Now PK became a rock star in the flashlight world. All that cash spent on R&D meant SureFire could compete with the others in government contracts, largely on their own terms thanks to a secret sauce of krypton and xenon combo gas filled light bulbs. An entire industry has since developed around those 6P modules called P60. Clones and copies galore. 

Later Don Keller teamed back up with Tony to help develop LED technology. PK teamed up with ARC flashlights to develop brighter, but better color beams from LED's. His brother worked at Motorola and also assisted. Don eventually went to Brinkmann but when they decided to make lights overseas he left. And soon after Brinkmann got out of the flashlight game. 

Eventually PK started his own gig and is now developing the next generation of military lighting. Dr John Matthews never did make a pistol. And Don Keller is largely retired somewhere on the west coast of America. Tony Maglica is still out front at Maglite and sends a "thank you" email everytime you make a purchase at his web store. Of course it's a bot-mail, but it's still kinda cool. 

Perhaps the most ironic "clone" maker to fall was one called Tru-Grit who produced direct copies of LA Screw lights, but was sued (and lost) by none other than John Wayne. "How dare you use that name Pilgrim"……


----------



## Remembertheslap (Nov 20, 2021)

You and me shoud team up, Bykfixer. ...We'd be an absolute riot at parties....


----------



## bykfixer (Nov 20, 2021)

So long as the party ends by 9:30. My brain goes into coma mode after that.


----------



## tech25 (Nov 20, 2021)

Love the history lesson! Thank you!


----------

