Anodizing on Cam Lobes

Jim Titt wrote:

As Greg D says it´s clear you don´t understand patents, what they cover and their benefits to everyone. 

I understand patents and their purpose just fine.  I simply believe that patents are often abused.  The intended effect of a patent is to promote innovation by protecting intellectual property (as you mentioned).  Unfortunately, patents also have the unintended consequence of stifling innovation when the patent is too broad or obvious, and clogging the system with legal disputes.  We've all hear of patent trolls who intentionally buy or "invent" large numbers of overly broad and/or obvious patents, and then sit around waiting for someone to infringe them.  

The DMM patent specifically covers the removal of a coating from parts of a cam lobe to improve its function, not how you remove it.

I realize that.  But the text which you cited specifically mentions several possible processes to accomplish that as well.  Anyway it doesn't matter...

 That other manufacturers are too cheap or lazy to realise the benefits of doing this and not smart enough to patent this as a concept is their problem. They can at any time either a) contest the patent b) pay a royalty to DMM to improve their product, the sum to be paid decided either by agreement or by arbitration.

Ask yourself this...  What motivated DMM to patent the process of removing a coating from a working surface?  Did they truly believe that their engineers had come up with a novel idea?  I don't think so.  Remember that Totem issued a recall for their cams way back in 2011 (DMM patent is 2014) where they removed annodization, because Totem realized that annodization made them more likely to slip in limestone.  I suppose Totem should have issued a patent instead of a recall, but maybe none of the people at Totem were so predatory (definitely not because they were "lazy").  It is also unlikely that DMM had R&D costs for this "invention" which they were trying to recoup.  The only novel idea that DMM had was to patent an obvious/simple process, and to aggressively market that process.  It's like a kid finding a camera on vacant chair and saying its mine because "I found it first".  The kid didn't actually do anything to deserve the camera.

Patent exist to allow companies to openly publish details of their invention/process for the general benefit of the community by giving the patent holder certain intellectual protection for usually 20 years, the previous system of secrecy was a disaster for industry and science.

Yes the previous system stank, and the current system may stink less, but it still stinks.  I don't fault DMM for their patent, they are just good at playing the game.  I fault the system for allowing such things to be patented in the first place.  Maybe i am biased because I work in the software industry, and there are so many frivolous patents/lawsuits in software.

Jim Titt wrote: From EP2954937(A1):-

"[0014]    From a second aspect, this invention provides a cam element for a camming device which has a body on which is formed a working surface, in which the body, as manufactured, has applied to it a coating, primarily for size identification during use, other than in the region of the working surface.

    [0015]    Although this adds to complication in manufacture, the absence of a coating enhances the grip of the working surface (or avoids the degradation of the grip that is caused by the presence of a coating). It should be noted that in conventional cam elements, which are entirely coated, the coating may partially or completely wear from the working surface after a period of use. In this context, the coating is one that is applied as a manufacturing step, such as by an anodisation process, as distinct from a naturally-occurring passivation coating as forms naturally on metals such as aluminium.

    [0016]    One or more cam elements in a device embodying the first aspect of the invention may be embodiments of the second aspect of the invention.

    [0017]    This invention also provides a method of making a cam element comprising forming a body, applying a coating to the body, and performing an operation on the body to form a working surface, thereby removing the coating in the region of the working surface. Such an operation may include one or more of machining, abrading, or blasting. This invention further provides a method of making a cam element comprising forming a body that includes a working surface, applying a resist or a mask to the working surface, and then applying a coating to the body other than in the region of the resist or mask."

Looks like an absolutely normal process anyone in industry would patent and clearly the examiners thought so as well  

This is a cite to a (European) patent application, not a granted patent.

Someone with a little more time and interest than me can see what the current status if they want https://worldwide.espacenet.com/
Would be slightly interesting to see if there is a corresponding US application and if so, how it has been examined.

As to this statement:
"That other manufacturers are too cheap or lazy to realise the benefits of doing this and not smart enough to patent this as a concept is their problem. They can at any time either a) contest the patent b) pay a royalty to DMM to improve their product, the sum to be paid decided either by agreement or by arbitration."

As far as the US is concerned, there is no compulsory arbitration as to patent damages, and the typical remedy would be an injunction.  If a court didn't award an injunction, but found infringement, it (or a jury) would determine damages.  No idea how it works in other jurisdictions.

And as to this statement:
Patent exist to allow companies to openly publish details of their invention/process for the general benefit of the community by giving the patent holder certain intellectual protection for usually 20 years, the previous system of secrecy was a disaster for industry and science"

I wonder what "previous system" is being referenced, as patents in more-or-less their current form have existed at least since the industrial revolution.  And the "system of secrecy" still exists in the form of trade secrets, which are very much alive and kicking as a form of intellectual property (although not necessarily as an alternative to patents except in some situations).