Why I hate clones (and so should you)

[Black Rose]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

The $21 Wranglers at Wal-Mart 😗

 

[SureAddicted]

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]

The $21 Wranglers at Wal-Mart 😗

Ah those are levi's 501 clones!

 

[red02]

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]

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?"

 

[M@elstrom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 🙂