Mach30SiR said:
So your saying theres no difference in fine, ultra fine, and medium grades?
No, I didn't say that at all. Care to define the terms you are using? Polyclay vs. "regular" clay? I presumed the OP was asking about "plastic" clay vs. "elastic" clay, which I believe are the terms used by the patent-holder and the company found to be infringing. The OP didn't mention anything about fine, ultra-fine, and medium.
There are certainly differences between clays. The original patent has 50 or 60 claims, covering different types of abrasives, detergents mixed in, etc. etc.
If the OP was referring to one reseller that uses the name "Poly Clay" in conjunction with other marketing terms, I will reiterate, the patent holder for detailing clay has prevailed in protecting their patents against other clay companies. All clay (sold in this country) is made by or made under license to the patent holder. This clay is formulated in a multitude of ways resulting in different colors, characteristics, additives, abrasiveness, etc. The patents are over-arching, and clays may differ substantially. What I mean by that, is that basically the patent holder was successful in patenting the "concept" of claying, as well as an entire spectrum of ingredients. Kind of like if someone patented the "concept" of laundry detergent, and everyone who made laundry detergent had to be licensed to make it, regardless of the formula or ingredients.
This has been discussed in many other threads.
Note: There may be some of that "other" clay still out there in the supply chain being sold; however, my reading of the legal documents (which were online and linked by other members in other threads) would indicate that sale of the "other" clay by distributors who were in possession of it before the court order are still in violation of the court order.