

1962 glass could be Corning's next bonanza seller - evo_9
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/1962-glass-could-be-Cornings-apf-978849301.html?x=0

======
code_duck
Technical errors in articles like this stand out so glaringly when they are
about something you know. It reminds me to never rely on journalism for
technical details about something I don't know well.

"To make Chemcor, Corning ran the sheets through a "tempering" process that
set up internal stresses in the material. The same principle is behind the
toughness of Pyrex glass, but Chemcor was tempered in a chemical bath, not by
heat treatment."

NOoo - the strength of Pyrex DOES NOT come from being tempered, it is a
chemical difference. Pyrex glass is a brand of borosilicate, and it's the high
silica content and boron that make it both more mechanically durable and
resistant to thermal shock. I don't even think you CAN heat temper
borosilicate.

This has been a message from Chem lab dork, carry on, carry on...

~~~
wanderr
Unfortunately, modern Pyrex contains no borosilicate but is now made from
"tempered soda-lime": <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrex>

~~~
code_duck
That only refers to Pyrex cookware, not lab or glassblowing glass.
Historically, Pyrex was a brand of borosilicate labware, glassblowing supplies
and cookware, but the cookware brand was spun off by Corning in the 90s. They
started making Pyrex brand glassblowing glass in China, and it's still
borosilicate (it makes a huge difference for scientific glass blowing!).

------
jleader
My impression is that Chemcor hadn't been completely shelved after its
invention, just that it hadn't found any hugely profitable uses. I'm
reasonably sure I've seen the brand name before.

<http://www.corning.com/gorillaglass/gorilla_timeline.aspx> says "1965:
Chemcor glass was used in many commercial and industrial products until the
1990’s. Variants of Chemcor continue to be used in ophthalmic and
pharmaceutical products."

I found <http://www.springerlink.com/content/w1142mnnt5u61410/> which is a
journal article (translated from Russian) from 1982, discussing the ion-
exchange annealing process used to strengthen Chemcor and similar glasses.

I also found an interesting Time magazine article from 1962 about Corning,
which opens with a paragraph about Chemcor, and later mentions "[Corning's]
new Chemcor has a wide range of potential industrial uses as a cheap, strong
substitute for plastic, but has so far been used only for a virtually
unbreakable tableware called Centura."

Apparently Centura was not microwave-safe, and was discontinued in the late
70s: [http://www.corellecorner.com/centura-dinnerware-tableware-
pa...](http://www.corellecorner.com/centura-dinnerware-tableware-pattern-
profiles.html)

------
Splines
Surprisingly enough, the Corning website has some interesting tidbits that
aren't in the OP's story:
[http://www.corning.com/news_center/corning_stories/gorilla_g...](http://www.corning.com/news_center/corning_stories/gorilla_glass.aspx).
An interesting read.

------
lutorm
The thought that struck me was that it was lucky it wasn't someone's startup
project, as Corning had the finances to sit on it for 50 years until it found
a market use...

~~~
jerf
Hypothetically, this is what patents are actually for. By describing your
process to the point that anybody could replicate it from the patent alone,
the government grants you a monopoly, and once that is up it theoretically
never disappears from public knowledge again.

Realistically there are issues of course, but that's the theory.

(This is actually one of my core reasons to be against software patents; _even
if_ they otherwise worked as designed, in practice a lot of software patents
are ten pages of legalese, half or more dedicated to simply enumerating the
presence of a computer in the invention and various combinations of "on a
network" and "with a disk drive" etc, and in the end the patent document is
usually more of a _spec_ then an _implementation_. If we really carried
through on the logic of software patents, a software patent ought to require a
software implementation in clear source code that is proved to implement the
desired algorithm within a reference environment, and the source code should
itself have no copyright protection. Combine that with a shorter term and I'd
at least object much _less_ , though I ultimately do agree in abolition in
this domain; trade secrets and copyright are adequate to the task, if not
already overkill.)

Somewhat more directly on topic, I bet 1960s and 1970s material science
patents probably hold a few more things that are useful today that weren't
useful then.

~~~
culled
Of course a patent still wouldn't have helped in this case if it has been
around for 50 years.

~~~
jerf
No, that's the exact opposite of my point. By patenting something, you stick
in it the database of "public knowledge" so that it could be discovered 50
years later if need be. That means it wouldn't be necessary for Corning to sit
on it for 50 years. Sitting on things for 50 years and making the current
status of the filer irrelevant (dead, disincorporated, whatever) is one of the
purposes of the patent system.

The "limited monopoly" is part of a social contract and understanding the
whole contract is important.

~~~
nickpinkston
However, if they successfully commercialize sans patents - it'll be a good
case against patents being needed to monetize. Finding markets, production
advantages and expertise is still a bigger part of the equation than King
George fencing off your market.

------
shaddi
This was invented 48 years ago; would relevant patents have expired by now?
What would prevent other companies from also manufacturing this glass?

~~~
janzer
"...Corning dug out Chemcor from its database, tweaked it for manufacturing in
LCD tanks, and renamed it Gorilla."

My guess is that "tweaking" is covered by new patents, although anyone should
be able to produce the original Chemcor now.

~~~
ajdecon
Exactly. In particular, it sounds like they've revamped the manufacturing
process a bit to take advantage of modern techniques. This new process will
probably be the new patent, rather than the glass formula.

------
fondue
Here's a video of the ball drop test mentioned.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTX79QU-1-U>

Compared to regular glass

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=forSXEJIM3E>

------
qjz
I find it hard to believe that there wasn't a demand for stronger, thinner,
lighter, scratch-resistant glass until recently. There must be more to this
story.

~~~
SecretAgentMan
I worked in Corning's S&T plant (Sullivan Park) for a number of years. Corning
is all about process and the recipe may have been around for a while, but the
process surrounding getting large enough (in the case of TVs) imperfection
free pieces of glass was extremely difficult and time consuming. I don't think
they really 'sat on it' and 'dug it out' so much as they were able to perfect
the manufacture of some of their other recipes more quickly.

The glass has to be completely clear, completely flat and extremely thin - not
an easy result to get at no matter what your recipe.

------
glhaynes
The Droid's screen is apparently Gorilla Glass and it's been "confirmed" by
somebody that the iPhone 4 uses it too.

