Niteye Zip 20?

[ironhorse]

I'm not defending them, just asking. At what point is it okay to copy something. Most lights are basically a tube with a light on one end and a switch, typically at the other end. They are copies of the first light made. And what about materials. Who made the first titanium light? Was it McGizmo? That's been copied. Cars, trucks, motorcycles, shoes, cell phones, everything is copied.

Again I'm not defending them. I know there has been a tremendous amount of time and money spent developing the Spy lights. I'd love to have one some day, but where do you draw the line?

 

[ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond]

I think it may warrant looking at some copies in the past (at least ones I can think of - and please correct me if I get it wrong as some of these things occurred before I joined CPF).

Arc6 = copy of the Ti-PD. But it was also a good light from what I read and also may have taken the UI even further.

McE2s = copy of the SF switch. Don got his hand slapped by SF over that one but it was an ingenious design.

Surfire 6P has been copied 29 ways from Sunday some good some junk.

IMO - if you are going to copy a light like the Spy at least put some effort into copying the UI and giving the original light some credit. This Spy copy feels like a knob connected to a potentiometer inline with an LED. For anyone coughing up $3-400 and thinking they are getting a cool Spy clone they will be quickly disappointed.

 

[nbp]

Plus, there was not even an attempt at an original idea with this light. It is an exact copy (albeit lower quality) of the SPY. This is not a case of someone just using a side by side battery configuration and a control knob and designing their own light with those features. It is 100% clone. The SPY is so distinctive it cannot be "accidental similarities".

 

[Norm]

It is 100% clone.

Clone = make an identical copy of: This definitely isn't a clone, it is a rather poorly execute copy = An imitation or reproduction of an original.

Norm

 

[mvyrmnd]

I'll probably be kicked off CPF for even thinking this, but if one of these came up for say $20 I'd probably grab it... :duck:

I promise I'll do destructive testing and post photos though! :thumbsup:

 

[ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond]

I welcome you all in joining me in posting honest reviews of this light on said website. I posted one, we'll see if it even make it to being published.

 

[nbp]

Clone = make an identical copy of: This definitely isn't a clone, it is a rather poorly execute copy = An imitation or reproduction of an original. Norm

You're getting needlessly sidetracked by my use of the word clone. The second definition of clone is "one that appears to be a copy of an original form". So unless you're talking about genetically identical sheep it is an acceptable use of the word.

Of course it is a poor quality copy. I said that in my post. My point was that contrary to the above post that asked something like "How far do we take this? Flashlights are all going to be similar." that is not the case here. It isn't like Niteye made a light and then were like like "Oh sorry ours is kinda like that one, we had no idea!" They set out from the beginning to make a "clone" of the SPY. It is obvious that is exactly what happened. Is it identical in every detail? No. Is it so similar as to be clearly a copy? Without a doubt. And that is what makes it so egregious. It has happened to many of our custom makers, including Don and Enrique, and likely others.

 

[dc38]

You're getting needlessly sidetracked by my use of the word clone. The second definition of clone is "one that appears to be a copy of an original form". So unless you're talking about genetically identical sheep it is an acceptable use of the word.

Of course it is a poor quality copy. I said that in my post. My point was that contrary to the above post that asked something like "How far do we take this? Flashlights are all going to be similar." that is not the case here. It isn't like Niteye made a light and then were like like "Oh sorry ours is kinda like that one, we had no idea!" They set out from the beginning to make a "clone" of the SPY. It is obvious that is exactly what happened. Is it identical in every detail? No. Is it so similar as to be clearly a copy? Without a doubt. And that is what makes it so egregious. It has happened to many of our custom makers, including Don and Enrique, and likely others.

What NBP means is that this is a blatant but futile attempt at reverse engineering a prestigious light. The tailcap locking mechanism seems to be the same, the form factor IS the same, the battery configuration is the same...and the only excuse we are given is that 'great minds think alike, so therefore 'similar' designs would eventually be coincidentally conceived YEARS after the original is conceived.' Which is a crock of BS, of course. A couple centuries ago, that would be 'feasible' as scientific research often 'occurred' in this way. With the Internet the way it is now, I'm sure we have no doubt in our minds that such a 'coincidence' is hardly so. Like, come on, at least have manufactured it with a different locking mechanism!

Hope nothing was lost in interpretation!
(if this light did pop up for under 50$ though, I WOULD pick it up and tear it down just for kicks- tribute to Data)

 

[easilyled]

If permission is sort to use design elements and credit given to the original designer for the idea and/or royalties as appropriate, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Its when this is not carried out that I find it in very poor taste.

Another example of a similar circumstance to this is the use of data's databank 70 as the basis for the structural design of a light called xm-18 by one of the leading manufacturers on this forum. As far as I know, no credit was ever given to data or the databank 70 for this either.

 

[dc38]

If permission is sort to use design elements and credit given to the original designer for the idea and/or royalties as appropriate, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Its when this is not carried out that I find it in very poor taste.

Another example of a similar circumstance to this is the use of data's databank 70 as the basis for the structural design of a light called xm-18 by one of the leading manufacturers on this forum. As far as I know, no credit was ever given to data or the databank 70 for this either.

Honestly, although there are some structurally similar designs between the db70 and the xm18, it seems to be (in final form and function) quite a different beast. Active cooling, dedicated power source, modular...Even IF the xm was based loosely off of the DB, in the end, it is a very different light.

From an engineering standpoint, hexagons are among the most structurally sound modular shapes around. The case between the spy007 and the zip20 is much more controversial, because niteeye blatantly and adamantly claims that this 'was their design' and that 'any resemblance'( including and implying structural design, layout of user interface, power source, and overall dimensions) was purely coincidental, and that CPF was part of a 'slanderous accusation' that was orchestrated as part of Nitecore's devious schemes to 'bring down' the respectability of jetbeam/niteeye. I think that just adds fuel to our fire.

If I read that statement wrong from Niteeye, somebody please correct me. I know firsthand that many OVERSEAS based companies and manufacturers will talk in such a way to play the victim and to deny as many allegations as possible. They will even go as far as to lie and make claims that they know cannot be validated, such as their claim of pure developmental coincidence. They do NOT care, as long as they make a quick buck.

 

[Christoph]

Niteye ZIP20 ZIP 20 Ti

I just saw this today:shakehead I don't know if its been seen yet I don't think I will be getting one.
Chris
Hi Dave long time no see.
Sorry I should have searched this is old

 

[Data]

Re: Niteye ZIP20 ZIP 20 Ti

Chris,

Hey, thanks for keeping an eye out for me.

It is good to hear from you. Hope all is well with you and yours and have happy holidays.


Cheers
Dave

 

[easilyled]

Honestly, although there are some structurally similar designs between the db70 and the xm18, it seems to be (in final form and function) quite a different beast. Active cooling, dedicated power source, modular...Even IF the xm was based loosely off of the DB, in the end, it is a very different light.

I'm talking about the design not the electronics. The design is uncannily similar in my opinion.
The electronics in the zip20 is also different from that in the SPY007s, but its the similarity in the design that people object to.

From an engineering standpoint, hexagons are among the most structurally sound modular shapes around. The case between the spy007 and the zip20 is much more controversial, because niteeye blatantly and adamantly claims that this 'was their design' and that 'any resemblance'( including and implying structural design, layout of user interface, power source, and overall dimensions) was purely coincidental, and that CPF was part of a 'slanderous accusation' that was orchestrated as part of Nitecore's devious schemes to 'bring down' the respectability of jetbeam/niteeye. I think that just adds fuel to our fire.

I don't agree at all. The db70 was the only hexagon tray with hand-grips ever designed and to me its obvious that the xm-18 was heavily influenced by it. 47's claims the xm-18 was his design too. No tribute was ever paid to the db70 for the inspiration behind it.

 

[batvette]

I researched this issue when I saw the Zip20 on ebay today. First thought was "where have I seen this before". After seeing numerous threads and posts criticizing Niteye's copying the intellectual properties of another entity, the obvious irony popped into my head:

How much has the original manufacturer paid Ian Fleming's estate or the owners of the James Bond brand for the use of the name "Spy 007"? That'a a real issue as it seeks to capitalize on a licensed brand name with recognition.

As for the flashlight itself unless there were patents granted on the original there isn't really much to say there. While it may seem "unethical" to make a blatant copy standing on ethics alone is problematic as it's a constantly shifting standard- so the rational mind looks to the law, a standard written in black and white applied equally.

If a design is a substantial innovation, you file a patent to protect it. Since to most, a $1200 EDC is an absurd extravagance, you can also argue that if someone were knocking them out at $100 that's a separate market and doesn't affect sales of the original. We can assume at nearly $500 they didn't get a lot of takers, for reasons ethical and practical.

 

[Bullzeyebill]

Enough said re the so called copying of a CPF members design. If the was an exact copy with the the UI, or other exact features, then it would worth discussing. Closing this.

Bill