engine and drivetrain Ireland Engineering 292 cams....from Schrick specs....

[leonine99]

02ers....

I was at Jeff Ireland's shop on Friday morning and he asked me to try to get the word out regarding 292 cams. He is in the process of setting up manufacture of 292 cams to exact specs of a Schrick 292, and is looking for anyone who might have a used Schrick 292 hanging around that may have a bad lobe, or is otherwise intact, but not useful. He needs one so he can get the exact measurements, and is planning on having IE 292 cams manufactured to exact Schrick specs. IE has done great regrinds for quite some time, but we all know that newly manufactured is preferable to a regrind for many reasons - exact specs and measurement, etc. Jeff is providing a generous offer, if you are willing to send in your Schrick 292 cam in so he can use it to set up exact manufacture specs, he will send you a brand new IE 292 cam in return, probably in about 60 days. First usable cam in wins! Anyone who is running IE parts on their car (a lot of us!) know that quality and reliablity of IE's work. This will be a nice service to the Vintage BMW community, since last time I checked a new Schrick 292 cost over $500, and Jeff will deliver an equal cam for a whole lot less. Feel free to drop a note to me or him, and let me know anyway I can help. Thanks guys for your time and help.

We're also tentatively planning a Xmas weekend drive that will end up at an open house at Ireland Engineering and Groma Fabricators, which are next door to each other. Jeff will offer some "drive only' specials for the guys doing the drive and we'll have lunch there, a bbq if enough guys commit. More on this soon. Thanks

Jeff

[Guest Anonymous]

if he can do the 292... I'd rather see him do a 304...

yes he could use my cam test stand to diagram out the cam...

[Guest Anonymous]

I really like IE, but Dr. Schrick still exists and manufactures and sells their cams, so how can someone just duplicate the Schrick design/parts and sell clones? Doesn't this amount to basically stealing their engineering and playing off their brand-name recognition by selling/advertising a "Schrick" clone part for less?

This seems different than the recent IE 'cloning' of the Mahle pistons, as in that case the original parts ceased being manufactured. Isn't this a similar situation to foreign cloning of iPods? Is there some intellectual property or patent or license statute that covers this?

I know this occurs quite a bit in the aftermarket auto parts industry, but what's legal and what's not?

[Green2k2]

I really like IE, but Dr. Schrick still exists and manufactures and sells their cams, so how can someone just duplicate the Schrick design/parts and sell clones? Doesn't this amount to basically stealing their engineering and playing off their brand-name recognition by selling/advertising a "Schrick" clone part for less?

This seems different than the recent IE 'cloning' of the Mahle pistons, as in that case the original parts ceased being manufactured. Isn't this a similar situation to foreign cloning of iPods? Is there some intellectual property or patent or license statute that covers this?

I know this occurs quite a bit in the aftermarket auto parts industry, but what's legal and what's not?

along those thoughts, how can any aftermarket company make "any" part for any car? Isn't the whole car and it's parts design owned by the original manufacturer?

yes and no.

Anyone can make any part for any car without fear of breaking any laws.

No one can put or use another company's name/logo on their part or use it in their advertizing of said part.

That's a bit simplified but is the jist of it all. This is one of the reason's you'll always see the "NAME" of the maker along with the part regardless of specific design variances from original.

A parts maker would have to file for a patent on a specific design.

no one owns the sole rights to making an ordinary cam (and that is key)regardless of it's profile.

Or if you prefer another example, let's take Variable Valve timing/lift.

Honda didn't invent it. So, they couldn't stop anyone from making their own versions of it...however Honda did make a unique mechanism to apply it.

They can't patent VVT but they can lay claim to their version of it.

Sooooo, anyone can make a cam to be used in Honda's cars...but they can't use Honda's name or law claim to their form of VVT.

[Guest Anonymous]

Not so fast.

Your oversimplification suggests anyone can reproduce any part without consequences. There are a whole bunch of foreign and domestic design patents and trademarks that can be infringed - provided the holder takes affirmative steps to protect and pursue its rights. That's what licensing is all about.

Things get even more complicated when you are considering derivative works. Just altering a design or manufacturing component may or may not be treated as an infringement. It must have slipped your mind?

This area is highly specialized and by analogy, it is why some well known software makers protect their code as though it were a matter of life or death, because financially speaking, it might be.

[Green2k2]

Sure, and not to hijack (we can discuss this in a different thread), but a "cam" is not owned by anyone. At least I see no patent on our 2002 cam.

A unique implimentation or design would warrant a patent if applied for, but I highly doubt (not known by me) that BMW or SHRICK has a unique patent.

BMW's engine is unique but what patents do they own on it?

How was SCHRICK able to make a cam for it?

How is anyone able to make parts for it?

[Guest Anonymous]

this discussion is why no one has done it before...

bmw owners deserve to buy cams at inflated prices...

[Green2k2]

HA!

Along these lines, Ford has filed for patents on their truck parts that get dinged and broken the most. Parts like the grill and the headlight can and the side mirrors etc.

This is to keep aftermarket/overseas parts makers from making those commonly broken parts cheaper.

Now aftermarket mirrors and grills etc can still be made but not as originally designed by Ford.

They've been doing this for 4 or 5 yrs that I know of (maybe longer).

It's also caused some lawsuits and a patition to revamp international patent laws...

I guess Ford owners deserve to pay more for parts too.

[Guest Anonymous]

You missed the point. This is an extremely complicated issue. There may be patent protection and then there may only be the threat of patent enforcement for a lapsed patent or other nuanced claims. There is also something called indirect patent infringement when someone indirectly uses a patented invention when making an entirely unrelated device. You mentioned you did not know if Schrick had current patents. Bear in mind that patent searches are rarely reliable when done gratuitously on line and most countries have their own patent laws.

The major manufacturers of spark plugs and camshafts routinely improve their devices, if for no other reason than to continue alleged patent protection. As an example, spark plugs have been around for many years, but patents are still being issued for their design and manufacture. http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7449823.html http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080238282 . Likewise, these patents are infringed and sometimes result in recourse: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_n27535245 You cannot assume all common items can be freely reproduced - even though many can be. If someone has expended serious effort in designing and producing an item they may have done so with or without protecting their intellectual property. Certain countries are notorious for casting a blind eye to these protections and producers have to take their chances as a business decision.

You may be confusing the fact that manufacturers cannot tie their product to other branded products by claiming it might void a warranty - as they used to. So AMC would not be able to persuade you to use their AMC branded oil by claiming it would void any manufacturer's warranty. Magnuson Moss.

[Green2k2]

Don't misinterpret my "over simplified" note as a free for all to break laws or my endorsement of such. I don't.

However, to keep it simple, we'll stick to our BMW cam, SCHRICK's cam and IE's cam. (The thread started there-so if we're gonna continue with the hijack let's at least make it applicable to the original topic)

Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that BMW never did or no longer does own any patents on their M10 2.0 motor's cam. (BMW's cam for that motor isn't anything special, so I don't expect to find any patents on it)

Along those lines, SCHRICK wouldn't be able to patent a simple cam. They'd have to claim some sort of 'special' manufacturing process or alloy or something in order to lay claim to an otherwise simple cam design.

Or to put it bluntly: "what is it about SCHRICK's cam that is unique and patent-able?"

If SCHRICK can make a cam, why can't IE or anyone else for that matter?

Understand what I'm asking? How is a "292" profile 'owned' by anyone?

Why hasn't anyone said anything about "regrinds" of said profiles?

If, on an ordinary cam, -because this is what we're talking about--not general patent laws--but a cam profile- a random profile can be patented, then how is it that every machine in the world has at least one 'cam' in use? Thusly infringing on "someones idea"...right?

In this case I don't think that 'rule' applies.

I think that at best, SCHRICK and maybe if they've claimed it "292" would be protected under law...not the profile itself.

IE should be careful using SCHRICK's name in advertising/promoting the cam they make...likewise they might want to check if "292" is a trademarked product name.

Otherwise, I doubt there is any reason to be concerned.

[kbmb02]

What's this? An intelligent discussion of differing opinions? . . . Wait; am I logged-in to the right forum? (chuckle)

This is good info, folks. Enjoying the read.

[TobyB]

Schrick could attempt to patent the unique characteristics of their opening and closing curves. That might stand up in court.

But they do charge an EXORBITANT amount for a cast stick of metal

with little bumps on it. A Chebby bumpstick with any shape bump you

want on it is a fraction of the price- and has twice the bumps.

Of course, then you'd have a Chebby...

t

[Guest Anonymous]

My original post was in response to your statement: "Anyone can make any part for any car without fear of breaking any laws." You seemingly qualified it with conditions to the effect that you could not pass the reproduction off as an original or allow buyers to falsely assume any association with the original well established product. Although related, the two concepts are not the same.

Admittedly, my explanation was as oversimplified as yours. The concepts do not lend themselves to generalizations because there are so many exceptions to the ever reinterpreted rules that having a SuperJD in the area, can become worthless, if one doesn't keep current.

Toby's observation about unique characteristics can be the key. But I can easily conjure up situations where uniqueness can be found in the design of the cam lobes and not just the number of overlapping degrees. Although the combination of overlap may be unique in and of itself., it could include a special method of chilling the metal or nitriding only certain portions of the cam. But I will agree with you in the abstract that someone named Iskendarian, Crane, Holley or Toby could produce their own cam that looks practically identical to The good Doctor's billets.

The issue arises when the Doc believes he has a colorable claim to something distinctly proprietary in his cam and that the Toby cam is eating into market shares or undercutting the prestige and valuable reputation the Dr. thinks his product enjoys. That is when we are off to the races with practical concerns including damages and the costs of enforcement.

Consider what is possibly an even more simple example. A wheel is so elemental that one might wonder how it can be the subject of a patent, but it has been - repeatedly. Sure everyone and anyone can make and sell wheels, but if the wheel you happen to market has a striking resemblance to BBS's current offering, you may be defending yourself - even if you designed and manufactured your wheel completely independently and absent any subjective influences. Methods of manufacture imparting strength and lightness are constantly the subject of claims. But I would bet the majority of claims are for design theft. This is a hybrid situation bordering another opus area (copyrights) where (alleged) infringers typically make a fast profit on products that literally fall out of fashion so fast that it is economically impractical to police the situation.

Then there is the related situation where Toby manufactures watches that bear his name on the dial but just happen to resemble something made be a small company in Geneva that sounds like Rolaids. Here, in addition to the other protections noted, there is the likelihood of trademark infringement - another complicated area. The patents may have expired and the copyright designs went unrenewed suggesting the watch is free for the copying. The usual rule of thumb involves the likelihood of confusion and this may extend to products that do not even have registered trademarks because most jurisdictions recognize a common law concept. Thus, if Toby want's to market his new Cola concoction in a bottle known world wide to be produced by a company headquartered in Atlanta, he may have problems.

Having gone through this exposition after much libations, I can only say that producing and selling a less expensive camshaft can be a great idea, but it could also be a better mousetrap for the unwary. But people far and wide would beat a path to Toby's door if he would only mass market his hydraulic VTEC Tobycam but like someone's camshaft removal tool, it always seems to be on back order.

hth (help that hurts?*)

*None of this has been proofed and may be goofed. I am tired!

[Green2k2]

Then we agree.

BBS doesn't have a patent on the wheel, but only a(n) (artistic) design.

likewise, SCHRICK doesn't own "the cam" but might claim a manufacturing process or an alloy or could hold the profile "292" name but highly doubt they own the profile.

SCHRICK would have to prove they were the company that 'intellectually' created said profile over someone elses.

just run a quiry "292 cam profile" on yahoo for instance...point proven? SCHRICK doesn't own that profile.

I would still like to reiterate that IE should be careful of using SCHRICK's name in their adverts/promos....that could more realistically get them into trouble.

[Guest Anonymous]

I dare say, IE hardly needs advice from this forum for reproducing parts and the ramifications thereof. Toby on the other hand, better get his flywheels and clutches sorted out before undertaking other projects!