Viewpoint tackles issues of importance
I am writing in response to your Jan. 6 editorial, in which you invite comment on your agenda.
Having spent the lion's share of my career in packaging, and many subsegments of it, I have been exposed to numerous professional magazines. While I believe each represented excellence in serving its readership, never once have I seen one so willing to step up to the plate to address social issues, or take stances that could be seen as biting the hand that feeds the mouth.
Your willingness to:
* Challenge companies to pay their fair share of taxes.
* Even raise the specter of a bottle-return bill.
* Encourage community service.
* Push for aggressive recycling efforts for the good of society as well as our collective bottom lines.
* Devote substantial space to the July 29 issue and the very emotional story of the Hayes family, which speaks volumes about your integrity, your humanity and professionalism.
While I believe that a trade journal has a primary responsibility to educate, inform and promote a given trade, we all bear a responsibility to our communities and the land we walk upon.
Profit is not a dirty word, but a reward and recognition of excellence in doing well, what we each do in our businesses.
There is no reason talented people who contribute their skills to their shareholders and stakeholders cannot earn a fair and equitable return on investment without having to sacrifice morals and ethics, or personal responsibility.
Keep up the good work!
Belvac Production Machinery-Plastic Container Systems
State-funded OPED faces same pitfalls
I am commenting on the Jan. 20 editorial, ``A long-term OPED would benefit Ohio,'' [Page 6]. It is my belief that the saying ``what goes around, comes around'' should be the Ohio state motto.
A couple of decades ago, the state of Ohio sponsored a similar organization called EPIC or Edison Polymer Innovation Corp.
I developed and patented two unique processes for applying high-performance polymer powder to carbon fibers while a professor of polymer engineering at the University of Akron.
Even though the university owned the patents (U.S. Patents 5,364,657 and 5,370,911), I was told by EPIC and the university that it was my obligation to find venture capital to develop the processes into commercial entities.
A couple of years later, working as a consultant in Ohio, I approached EPIC with my patented process for producing molded articles from high-performance polymer powders (U.S. Patent 5,316,711), only to be told that EPIC was now only assisting state university professors in developing their ideas.
Sounds like ``same old, same old'' to me.
Sherwood Technologies Inc.