Why I hate clones (and so should you)

[Foxfyre]

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]

This is fun.:huh:

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

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.