Sharing, and proprietary methods

[Kdivad@AOL.COM]

In a message dated Wed, 31 Jul 2002 5:04:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, BobDavis88@AOL.COM writes:

> 
> 
> In a message dated 07/29/2002 3:55:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
> Kdivad@AOL.COM writes:
> 
> >  I like to share.
> 
> David, if I were more sensitive I might think that this implied that I do 
> NOT. However, I will take your remark as good-natured ribbing. I will leave 
> it to others to decide if my nature is ungenerous. I would hope that thirty 
> years of teaching at local, state, regional and national conventions, a 
> series of Journal articles, free tutoring in tuning and voicing, and hours 
> spent on the phone helping other technicians would qualify as "sharing" at 
> least to some small degree. 
> 
> I wouldn't even have bit, because of my justified embarrassment at my rookie 
> gaffe; except that you raise a question which interests me, and I would like 
> to know what others think:
> 
> Ours is a very generous craft, the most generous I have ever seen. Does 
> sharing mean that NOTHING should be proprietary? Is there a moral problem 
> with a competitive advantage in some small area? How about our members who 
> hold patents? Most patents are like the rest of the knowledge base in our 
> industry - based in large measure upon the work of others; with perhaps a new 
> twist, or one clever feature which does not make it a different object, but 
> does distinguish it in some material way. A VERY small number represent truly 
> revolutionary ways of thinking. Did David Stanwood invent action 
> geometry/metrology? No, he oranized previously known information in a way 
> which is easier to use. As generous as Del Fandrich and Ron Overs are, do 
> they share EVERYTHING with us? No, both hold patents. 
> 
> I have come up with a few (a very few) original ways of thinking about 
> things. I chose not to try to protect them, in return for things others have 
> shared with me, to keep the system as open as possible. My wife has done the 
> same, with a clever method of replacing Steinway leather buttons, and other 
> refinishing details. I have written before about my appreciation of what I 
> have gained from others (probably 98% of what I know).
> 
> > I don't know how Bill found out the technique I have never told anyone.
> 
> Yes, yes, hold the satire, I realize that several people can come up with a 
> good idea independently. However, no one in my business area that I knew of 
> was using one particular small idea which I have been using for nearly ten 
> years, and I chose to tell no one, except for one person. I don't feel 
> guilty. Should I?
> 
> I would like to hear what others think about what can be 
> proprietary and what 
> can't.
> 
> Bob Davis

Bob, the simple answer to your question is no you should not feel guilty.  We all, I believe, hold some techniques and secrets back, if you find something new that works extremely well it can be like finding that magic fishing hole.  You want to keep its location all to yourself, at least for a while. When I first got into the piano business 30+ years ago in all my travels  and exposures to the piano men across the country most protected there techniques to the max, I believe because of fear of competition or fear of being judged by their peers.  
When I found the Dallas chapter of the PTG and the members there were open, giving and sharing of there "secrets" I decided to join.
I share and give back to the PTG as much as I can, though my resume with the PTG does not compare with yours.
When your comment about keeping a technique proprietary hit the list it felt odd to me. We do not talk about it generally and in almost all cases in the PTG and on this list it feels opposite the general open and sharing attitudes.
My apoligies to you, I meant nothing personal.

David Koelzer
Vintage Pianos
DFW