Niteye Zip 20?

[Glenn7]

I was thinking, I know its a long shot and lights change hands but I wonder if it was able to be kind of traced back to china from sales? as in I don't know how many 005z were made but how many were bought from china? you could track posts from other forums cross referencing handle/name.

Just a thought, Its the kind of thing I would do....

[Ualnosaj]

A quick question. So it's ok and we buy things like Fenix TK35 clones (hey look, a cheap way into a TK35!) but when it comes to more exotic pieces we cry out?

Or... It is because they're claiming the design as their own? I'm guessing it's the latter. Do humor me as I'm trying to understand the difference (not antagonizing).

On that note, if "UltraFire" copied the 007 and called it OH7 we wouldn't have the same response, right? We'd just say "oh we'll that's just some stupid thing they do those xxxxxFire guys"

Thanks folks.



________________
Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse the brevity of this message.

[borealis]

Your example is more acceptable, because it's one Chinese company copying another Chinese company. They have no respect for IP rights, so let them duke it out and live with the results.

In this case not only is it a non-Chinese design that they called their own, it's a CPF original.

[scout24]

I think there are a few more TK35 owners than Spy owners, and I don't recall seeing any such threads started. Maybe not as passionate a group of owners? I don't own one and I have nothing against the TK35, I'm sure it's a perfectly serviceable flashlight. I don't care who copied the Spy, could have been a guy in his garage somewhere. Would likely have gotten the same reaction here. Theft is theft. Not stepping up and admitting it is worse than doing it in the first place, in my book.

[run4jc]

I think there are a few more TK35 owners than Spy owners, and I don't recall seeing any such threads started. Maybe not as passionate a group of owners? I don't own one and I have nothing against the TK35, I'm sure it's a perfectly serviceable flashlight. I don't care who copied the Spy, could have been a guy in his garage somewhere. Would likely have gotten the same reaction here. Theft is theft. Not stepping up and admitting it is worse than doing it in the first place, in my book.

Exactly right. +1 There are just some examples when the copied article is more unique and special than others. I don't care what country the thief is from, he or she is still a thief....

[rufus001]

A quick question. So it's ok and we buy things like Fenix TK35 clones (hey look, a cheap way into a TK35!) but when it comes to more exotic pieces we cry out?

Or... It is because they're claiming the design as their own? I'm guessing it's the latter. Do humor me as I'm trying to understand the difference (not antagonizing).

On that note, if "UltraFire" copied the 007 and called it OH7 we wouldn't have the same response, right? We'd just say "oh we'll that's just some stupid thing they do those xxxxxFire guys"

Thanks folks.



________________
Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse the brevity of this message.

I was thinking the same thing myself. A lot of people on this and other forums love their knock offs. The whole its ok if it gets done to the Chinese thing doesn't wash with me.

[jabe1]

I've been reading through this for a few days, and it's upsetting to see the blatant ripoff. I am not of a financial status allowing the purchase of one of Data's masterpieces, but maybe some day.

I can say this, I will not be buying a light from any of the three makers mentioned in this thread, for the same reasons I decided not to purchase from Klarus and, IIRC, Lumintop, with regards the 4sevens line.

Boycotting them is my only means to show support for those others doing business properly.

[Bullzeyebill]

Interesting. Members who want to buy a cloned, copied, counterfeit item can do so, with full knowledge what they are buying, and if they want to complain about copying, etc, they can do so, and they will be heard. In this case many members are complaining about the copying of a particular product by one of our custom builders. Let them have their say. You want to complain, and argue about the copying of any other item that is for sale here on CPF, then do so, but start your own thread.

Bill

[Phil Ament]

I've been reading through this for a few days, and it's upsetting to see the blatant ripoff. I am not of a financial status allowing the purchase of one of Data's masterpieces, but maybe some day.

I can say this, I will not be buying a light from any of the three makers mentioned in this thread, for the same reasons I decided not to purchase from Klarus and, IIRC, Lumintop, with regards the 4sevens line.

Boycotting them is my only means to show support for those others doing business properly.

Whilst I do fully agree with the fact that it is each individual person's right to decide if they were to boycott a particular company because they have blatantly copied a certain flashlight and because of all the grave injustices involved, I also find it quite disheartening that it appears as though a number of people have also decided to include manufacturers or their products who have not yet been proven to have had anything to do with any aspect of the SPY007 copy/clone in question. As far as I am concerned this would just end up being another grave injustice performed, and I would really hate to see any company or individual being penalised for something that they have not done, because as far as I am aware as yet there has been no such proof that Sysmax/Nitecore has had anything to do with this SPY007 copying/cloning in any way shape or form.

I would also just like to remind people about the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty", meaning that the guilt of an accused person/party cannot be presumed and that they must be assumed to be innocent until proven otherwise. Also according to the legal system this principle is vital because, in the words of famous jurist William Blackstone, “the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. Even though that for us this may not be a legal battle as such, however I do very strongly hope that the same principles of fairness would still apply!

[rufus001]

Well said Phil Ament.

[KuanR]

I agree with you Phil, which is why I also mentioned I will purchase from either Jetbeam or Nitecore when someone can calrify who is who
I will wait till the dust settles and decide if I still want to pick up a few Nitecore Explorer lights
In the mean time, my Tri-V will continue to be on my EDC and keep me happy

[arewethereyetdad]

I would also just like to remind people about the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty", meaning that the guilt of an accused person/party cannot be presumed and that they must be assumed to be innocent until proven otherwise.

As you correctly noted, this is not a legal battle (yet), but it is a forum where members may post, within reason, their personal feelings. As such, we can find them guilty right off the bat if we so choose. And in my mind, they're just plain guilty. No tax dollars or court time needed here. The fact that it's an OBVIOUS rip-off is good enough evidence for me.

[Phil Ament]

As you correctly noted, this is not a legal battle (yet), but it is a forum where members may post, within reason, their personal feelings. As such, we can find them guilty right off the bat if we so choose. And in my mind, they're just plain guilty. No tax dollars or court time needed here. The fact that it's an OBVIOUS rip-off is good enough evidence for me.

Yes you too are correct, because I was not referring to whether there is any further need to prove if it was in fact a blatant clone/copy/rip-off as there quite obviously isn't, however it is when you keep using the terms "them" or "they're" when apportioning the blame that I feel that you need to not only be a bit more careful, but also a lot more accurate and specific!

[Bigmac_79]

As you correctly noted, this is not a legal battle (yet), but it is a forum where members may post, within reason, their personal feelings. As such, we can find them guilty right off the bat if we so choose. And in my mind, they're just plain guilty. No tax dollars or court time needed here. The fact that it's an OBVIOUS rip-off is good enough evidence for me.

I think Phil probably meant that though we certainly can make judgments of guilt before having proof of guilt, it would be wise not to.

Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse brevity and typos.

[jabe1]

Phil,
I do agree with what you said regarding "innocent until proven guilty". I have made a choice based on what evidence has been shown at this time. Two of the parties involved may be innocent, but perhaps not (by association). Until this tangled web is sorted, I will stand by my first instincts.
I have purchased from Nitecore in the past and may do so again, just not now.

[Phil Ament]

Further to my previous posts, when it comes to any company associations I would also just like to quote myself from a different thread if that is OK!

Even if they are remotely connected in some way, such as Sysmax is paying someone a fee/royalty to be able to use the JETBeam brand/trademark, then Sysmax shouldn't be blamed if someone at Niteye decided to copy or clone a particular flashlight, because that would then purely be "guilt by association". All that I am really saying is, blame the right person!

[run4jc]

Interesting. Members who want to buy a cloned, copied, counterfeit item can do so, with full knowledge what they are buying, and if they want to complain about copying, etc, they can do so, and they will be heard. In this case many members are complaining about the copying of a particular product by one of our custom builders. Let them have their say. You want to complain, and argue about the copying of any other item that is for sale here on CPF, then do so, but start your own thread.

Bill

Well said, Bill!

As you correctly noted, this is not a legal battle (yet), but it is a forum where members may post, within reason, their personal feelings. As such, we can find them guilty right off the bat if we so choose. And in my mind, they're just plain guilty. No tax dollars or court time needed here. The fact that it's an OBVIOUS rip-off is good enough evidence for me.

And well said, dad. One makes their own personal decisions. Funny thing is, since this isn't a 'court' and no one is required to 'testify under oath', it would be useful if the manufacturers in question could offer a bit more clarity. We've had denials of association - then we have declarations that suggest otherwise. Confusion and lack of information, IMHO, do more harm than good and allow this wound (as it were) to 'fester.' Perhaps the language barrier makes it difficult...I dunno.

There were mentions of this situation being analogous to some of the 'cloning' we see amongst the "roundfire" makers. Perhaps. Whether anyone believes it relevant or not, my opinion is that there IS a difference. You can only "do" round so many ways... and these round lights are typically mass produced to begin with.

But copying that unique design - that product or service that comes about as a result of one person's (or a small group's) creativity and thousands of hours of hard work - tends to offend me more than the other. As dad so correctly points out, it's an OBVIOUS rip off. Not always so obvious with the 'round lights.'

That's my opinion. But as I said, and others have said, theft is theft.

[Erzengel]

If they had just built a light with two Cr123s side by side, and a switch besides the LED and made it from boring anodized aluminum, we wouldn't be this outraged. Many of us would just say it is a copy but a lot cheaper and not as exclusive as Datas Spy 007. Trying to compete in the niche of exclusive and eypensive titanium lights is a whole different thing. It is worse, because Niteye is able to produce good lights on his own and could establish it's brand very fast amongst flashaholics. They didn't need to copy Datas design to get our money.Regarding the Niteye/Sysmax dispute over the ownership we can't know the truth without knowing the original contracts between both companies. I'm wondering whether the JETBeam brand will survive this dispute or if it will be replaced by Niteye.

[tab665]

ive been following this thread for a couple days now. im sure that this zip20 light will be well made and all as ive seen plenty of good reviews on niteye products, but i think that at that price i would rather just keep saving up and get an original spy.

[Stumpy]

If a company or companies continue to steal or copy styles from any custom maker with out compensation soon those makers stop creating. We will be left with fewer choices. Spend your money wisely.

[run4jc]

If a company or companies continue to steal or copy styles from any custom maker with out compensation soon those makers stop creating. We will be left with fewer choices. Spend your money wisely.

Well said, Stumpy. Well said. +1

[csshih]

My thoughts:

I sell Niteye lights and have a decent amount of inventory in stock.
When Niteye first popped up they had their zip20 listed in their pricesheets, but it was removed shortly. I was very happy about that.

Last month or so, it was put back into their pricesheet. Previously, they mentioned that they had a new "lighter style" flashlight. I didn't pay much attention to it as they had a cool new ti/cf flashlight in the works. I was quite happy about the design, but then the zip20 came up once again. I told them that it would anger enthusiasts.

Niteye appears to have some nice new designs, but this zip20 situation doesn't have me feeling good about them as a company.

Craig

[madecov]

My thoughts:

I sell Niteye lights and have a decent amount of inventory in stock.
When Niteye first popped up they had their zip20 listed in their pricesheets, but it was removed shortly. I was very happy about that.

Last month or so, it was put back into their pricesheet. Previously, they mentioned that they had a new "lighter style" flashlight. I didn't pay much attention to it as they had a cool new ti/cf flashlight in the works. I was quite happy about the design, but then the zip20 came up once again. I told them that it would anger enthusiasts.

Niteye appears to have some nice new designs, but this zip20 situation doesn't have me feeling good about them as a company.

Craig

I am in the same boat. It is a very nice product, it sold fair but not well.
I think they may now be dead in the water on this forum.

[romteb]

Niteye still has the opportunity to make things right, if they can work something out with Data or just abandon the Zip20 project i'm willing to consider these unfortunate events as part of the growing/learning process.

They still can admit the fault, repair the damage, clarify the Sysmax situation and start regaining our trust, it could be in every one's best interest.

[Bigmac_79]

Niteye still has the opportunity to make things right, if they can work something out with Data or just abandon the Zip20 project i'm willing to consider these unfortunate events as part of the growing/learning process.

They still can admit the fault, repair the damage, clarify the Sysmax situation and start regaining our trust, it could be in every one's best interest.

+1

Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse brevity and typos.

[Phil Ament]

Well as I started to write this Viola-niteye was currently online and reading this particular thread, however once again she/they have now gone offline without posting any response/explanation!

[jake25]

Niteye still has the opportunity to make things right, if they can work something out with Data or just abandon the Zip20 project i'm willing to consider these unfortunate events as part of the growing/learning process.

They still can admit the fault, repair the damage, clarify the Sysmax situation and start regaining our trust, it could be in every one's best interest.

I don't post often in CPF much more but I couldn't agree anymore. Make it right, put it in the past. Take down the product, stop selling it, apologize etc.

[cindy0212]

Hey guys,was the product announced officially by NITEYE? I didn't see it at least not on their official website,and I also didn't find the product in the market.NO SUPPLY AT ALL! I guess there are a lot of things need to be settled down before selling it,and I believe they are still working on it. "Innocent until proven guilty",that's also what I want to say.

[arewethereyetdad]

Niteye still has the opportunity to make things right, if they can work something out with Data or just abandon the Zip20 project i'm willing to consider these unfortunate events as part of the growing/learning process.

They still can admit the fault, repair the damage, clarify the Sysmax situation and start regaining our trust, it could be in every one's best interest.

Can't really see this happening. CPF may be powerful among our relatively small flashlight lover's group, but the much broader worldwide market, with the allure of big profits, will likely win out, and they'll just ignore us. Would love to be proven wrong.

[Bullzeyebill]

US dealers might be worrying about patent violations coming back on them, if they continue marketing the Zip20. We'll see how that pans out.

Bill