John Baymore on wed 15 oct 97
------------------
........snip........
So come on and share. Maybe it is ITC 100, maybe not. The least we can all
do
it try it as a starting point. And maybe from there we can even come up
with
something better.
......clip........
(Note .........there were a few other posts I could have clipped
from....... just a randon selection used above.)
I find the simultaneous discussion of the intellectual property issues, the
......use without credit..... thread, and the thoughts on the ITC formula
disemination very tightly interrelated, and in a very, very wry sense,
faintly humorous. I sincerely hope I am not alone.
This is really an ethics discussion all around. In one scenario, some are
indignant and feel used, abused, taken advantage of, and slighted. In the
other, some are saying =22go ahead....... take it=22, it is too expensive
anyway, =22good=22 ceramists share formulas, and so on. (Thank God some are
saying =22NO=22 also=21) Looked at collectively, it seems that the issues
involved are more who the taker and who is the take-ee is =3Cwg=3E.
I would hope that those who would have the formula for this or any
proprietary glaze, claybody, or the like in the public domain would have no
problem whatsoever with signing away the rights to all their works to the
college, university, or employer they are affiliated with. Also that they
think it just wonderful when they discover that the exact design for their
latest hot selling item is being =22knocked off=22 by a mass production =
ceramic
company and selling for slightly less in Walmart. Or that museum shops are
briskly selling non-royalty producing reproductions of their latest ceramic
sculpture. Equal treatment for all.
The formula for ITC products ARE intellectual property. They are the
property of the inventor. Rightly so. ITC deserves any and all credit
(read that also as money in this case) that the use of the product
generates. I would assume that they either hold a patent or have a patent
pending on the product. (I'd be suprised if they don't..... I don't have
the product literature here to check, and never really looked before =
=3Cg=3E.)
Jack is dead on target in NOT sharing the formula with anyone from ETHICAL
as well as legal reasons. Way to go, Jack.
If that formula IS in fact the actual formula (which I doubt), I am quite
certain it would have been obtained seriptitiously. I doubt that ITC would
be in the practice of giving out their =22bread and butter=22 for free. =
And
there is no reason they should be doing so......... do we need to give away
our works? If you want to know for sure if ITC wants the formula out into
the potting community ..... just call them up and ask for the formula=21
So that formula was probably obtained by something usually refered to as
=22Industrial Espionage=22. Spying. Theft of property.
For Jack (or anyone else) to give out that formula, aside from the moral
issue of aiding and abbeting (sp?) the thief in his/her attempt to cause
the folks at ITC harm, would open him up to possible legal charges for that
action. I would bet that the potential dollar volume of damage to ITC,
Inc. invloved here (industrially, not mostly from potters) WOULD result in
a criminal and or civil case.
It is also possible that the formula Jack got was obtained by someone
having a lab analysis done on the product. (That is actually much easier
said than done.) But even if it is from an analysis, the formula is STILL
the property of ITC. Just as I would HOPE that we would feel about the
design rights involved in an unauthorized slipcast copy made of one of our
handmade designs...... the original wan't used to make a mold, just copied
exactly from a =22visual analysis=22.
What is important is what the person then does with that analysis. If it
is used as the basis for doing private research and developing a better
product, that is probably one thing. (I'm no lawyer..... maybe even that
is actually technically illegal. =3Cg=3E) Analyzing it and then widely
publishing it is another ........... that is still attempting to steal the
work of another by a slightly more subtle method. It still will cause the
developer great financial harm.
As to the supposed =22high=22 cost of the ITC products:
Any product takes time to develop. These development costs get amortized
out into each unit of the product sold. If you sell a gazillion widgets,
the development cost per widget is very small. If you sell only a few, the
cost per widget is high. So even if the materials and labor to make the
widget are low, the product cost is high. So the selling price must cover
the development costs along with materials, labor, and profit.
If the product is in high demand because of its properties, then the
percieved value is high. The sellling price can then be high. Supply and
demand. What the traffic will bear. Simple.
Each individual has to weigh if the cost of any product is justified by its
benefits. Do your homework and then decide. Caveat Emptor applies here
too. No one is forcing you to buy the stuff. =24125.00 a gallon. Compared
to a gallon of stoneware glaze..... that's a lot more. Compared to a
gallon of burnish gold luster....... that's a lot less. Expensive or cheap
depends on what the =22recieved value=22 of the gallon of stuff you are =
buying
is.
As a professional kilnbuilder of many years of experience, I personally
don't think ITC products are expensive AT ALL for what they do. The
product basically works for what it says it does. However, you have to
understand my perspective. I don't tend to cut corners on materials for
kilns to save money in the short term just to pay it out threefold in long
term loss of effiency, deterioration, and failure. If a client is simply
looking for the cheapest kiln they can build.... I don't take the job,
cause my name is on that kiln. I don't hesitate to spec a Greenlite 28 for
an appropriate location application even though it is an =22expensive=22 =
brick
when compared to something like a G-20 or a medium duty hardbrick. It is
a different beast. If it really should be there, use it, not a K-23 cause
it is cheaper (now).
As they say.... you get what you pay for. I've seen plenty of so-called
=22cheap=22 kilns screw up untold thousands of dollars of ware, have poor =
fuel
efficiency, involve high repair costs, and die premature deaths because of
a little money supposedly =22saved=22 in the original construction.
That being said, I just recommended to a client a month ago that they
seriously review the cost / benefit / payback issues in a repair
recpommendation I gave them which included the option of spraying the
interior with ITC 100. I could do it...... it would do a number of really
good things...... but is it a wise use of their money at this point in
their long term plans? Are there other places that money should be spent
FIRST? Think, before just blindly jumping on the very rapidly moving ITC
bandwagon. Like anything to do with kiln construction or repairs, there
are broad considerations involved and while the ITC coatings might be the
right choice in one situation they might not be right in another.
It is wonderful stuff....... it's not magic elixer. Weigh cost / benefit,
do some tests, talk to people who have used it, and either send off your
money or don't.
Thanks for taking a stand, Jack.
Best,
......................john
PS: (BTW... I agree totally with Ron that those potters who give out
personal glaze and claybody formulas are being VERY generous and going
=22above and beyond=22. I also completely respect those who DO NOT share
formulas........ why should I EXPECT that they give away what is in
actuallity a commercial =22trade secret=22 with a potential competitor? I
happen to share my glaze and clay formulas with those in my workshops.....
but that is a very personal choice.)
John Baymore
River Bend Pottery
22 Riverbend Way
Wilton, NH 03086 USA
603-654-2752
JBaymore=40Compuserve.com
Jane Woodside on thu 16 oct 97
Just a comment on the issue of whether ITC has been patented--if it has, the
formula becomes available for use by anyone 17 years after the patent issues.
For this reason some inventors prefer to just keep their trade secrets and
hope no one can reverse engineer the formula. As a legal matter, the
legislature never intended that anyone would have a monopoly on a technical
innovation in perpetuity.
Jane Woodside
| |
|
