I’m just a reader/member here, not involved in arranging group buys except as a buyer and maker of suggestions.
Few thoughts, then I’ll shut up.
That sounds like a real problem — not one BLF people can solve.
Next time, maybe copy every message to the supplier instead of trusting BangGood will forward messages and replies.
_
Nomination for new banner headline for commercial sellers to read:
And don’t change the product — no substitutions after the sale is agreed to — and that includes being responsible for the parts you subcontract.
We need to say sorry for not tell Mr.song we choose another manufacturers to make the BLF A6.
because of they can't make the drivers we need, the A6 is so amazing,the driver is the most important thing, not the apperance. and I don't think this is first by you, maybe X6 is your first but A6 I don't think so.
you can't get noctigon copperboard but manker can also a reason, and comparing professional and fast feedback, we choose to manker.
We still want to cooperate with you, as you make some creative lights and we promote to the members .
Mr. Song Sheng
On 1st post of this thread, there is chronology what was happening and the reason why we switch to other manufacturer, actually Eagle Eye was our 1st choice.
If Eagle Eye have different version what happened during the process, you can clarify it here.
I understand the law in China is changing rapidly (and I know the history of the USA since independence — the US did not protect anything and people in the US stole from European writers and inventors for a long time, while building up from an iron age colonial farm culture to an industrialized culture. Only after the USA had anything to protect, then the USA enacted patent/copyright laws.
————- For reference, look at this kind of material, lots of it online now ———-
I think that as Mr. Song himself admits, the fact that Eagle Eye doesn’t currently have a patent on this design makes most of this discussion a moot point.
But patent status notwithstanding, the other possible issue here would be Mr. Song’s mention of some kind of moral violation by allegedly copycatting or counterfeiting their brand. In my opinion, the only way this could be the case is if we tried to slap the Eagle Eye brand on our light or make modifications using their brand name when they didn’t manufacture it or agree to our modifications. But that clearly isn’t the case here given that it is clearly labeled “BLF Special Edition” and doesn’t contain the Eagle Eye brand anywhere or make any claims to be an Eagle Eye product.
Rather than playing games, Eagle Eye could communicate promptly and professionally, while making a sincere effort to meet customers' specifications/demands. If that had happened, you never would have lost out on this opportunity in the first place.
There is plenty of competition, and perhaps you haven't realized that, yet. Hopefully, this is a learning experience for your company.
I love my BLF Eagle Eye so naturally feel bad for the company especially if Banggood let them down communication wise. Having said that Manker seem to want the business and have put in the effort to provide the torch required in a timely manner.
These group buys are good for us but also good for these companies. They are getting thousands of dollars worth of free development and engineering expertise for free and making a profit at the same time. This has to be good news but they need to earn it by offering the service that this kind of deal requires.
I hope Eagle Eye learn from this and come on board with more group buys in the future as they do produce some nice lights.
Is the salt in the wound perhaps the use of “A6” nomenclature?…
Regardless of going with Manker (which was the correct decision based on requirements) and unfortunate break-down of communication between BangGood and EE, maybe continuing to call it an ‘A6’ was perceived by EE as rubbing it in.
If a Budget Mobile Forum created a group-buy for a new device and called it the “BMF iPhone”, I’m sure that just because it wasn’t claiming to be Apple, wouldn’t make using the ’iPhone’ model name acceptable, especially on an aesthetically similar/identical device.
Of course, patents and copyrights need to be considered and if they don’t exist (as seems to be the case with ‘A6’) then it is indeed all moot. But principles still exist that could cause upset with a respected firm like EE. After all, Convoy didn’t call their S2+ the X2, despite the identical host.
I guess if agreements exist between two companies to share production of models, then this could be agreeable; such as Dipper BD02/3/4 and the same Convoy BD02/3/4 (I assume this was a mutual agreement or Simon shares production facilities with Dipper.)
None of this really explains the continued use of the “C8” model description to describe a generic host shape across so many different manufacturers. Perhaps sometimes the model name is just okay to re-use and sometimes not.
I would have been just as happy for the GB to have been called the B6 - either in honour of the forum, or Bugsy who organised the GB.
On the same note, perhaps the new X6 V2 GB should be differentiated from the regular X6 which is also EE’s? This Krono version could be K6 for the 18650 (instead of the smaller version), and K5 for the 14500 (using the same naming convention by cell-size as ToyKeeper noted).
Agreed with the above. X6 v2 should be renamed to B6. And possibly K6 to K5.
Even though the fact that we are not legally prohibited to use that name and design, there comes the “moral correctness”. I think it’s fair and within our reach to do so.
I think your assessment of salt in the wounds is quite valid. The use of the model number exacerbates the issue, and makes it like the “AWT style” batteries someone was complaining about, only in this case the product is better than the original.
I always thought the name had to do with a form-factor. Meaning anyone can make a “C8” style light with their name on it. This just happened to be an “A6” style light make by many manufacturers. Those that change the style name do so only to fit their own naming convention.
I had one of the EE group buy lights. It indeed did not deliver on specifications. A very simple cheap light in my collection blew it away in performance. It did make a great gift. It was a quality light in many respects. But it was not what it was suppose to be. The M-A6 promises to be a truly unique light worthy of a BLF signature. It appears to be exactly what we asked for.
I too hope EE uses this as a learning experience and works up a truly unique offering for a group buy. I still like zoomy lights and love programmable drivers for bike light applications. Got something to offer to entice us?
@ Mr.song of JinLang company - Stop blowing smoke and stop whining.
@ Banggood - I never expect good from you guys and this thread just reinforces what I have come to expect from you. Sorry, but the way I see it.
For the rest, we just need to stop thinking we are something important. Our little group buys are a pittance in the marketplace and the only thing we do, is to provide some free publicity for these guys. Kind of like being CNN. All for show, but nothing that makes a real difference.
As far as blatant copying and stealing ideas, no one does it better than China right now, but every nation has done it at one time or another and will again, most likely.
