The Moving Picture World (1907)

THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD. 2! very drastic experiments were made. The Edison and Waters kinetoscopes passed with little alteration; the cameragraph of N. Powers and the Chas. Dressier Com- pany's machine were ordered to be improved in one or two minor points, chiefly in the mechanism of the safety shutter devices. Both these firms are now hard at work, complying with the suggestions made, after which the machines of these three firms will have arrived at the acme of perfection, so that customers may be assured that every safeguard the ingenuity of man can devise will be there for protection of the public. One remark is very pertinent here, that is, with all this work and toil, while the machines are everything that can be desired, they are not fool proof; by this is meant, that if operators will not use common sense and care they can always find a means to have an accident ( ?). In penning the above remarks, we have no desire to imply that these three machines are the only ones that come up to the proper standard. Other makers have good machines, and no doubt they will pass the necessary ex- amination, but at the time of writing we have no knowl- edge of them, and if the various manufacturers will send us particulars of tests made with their machines we will give them full publicity. Edisosa. v©. Biograph. Owing to the importance of the decision handed down from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in re Thomas A. Edison vs. American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, we deem it necessary in the interests of the.profession at large to publish the opinion of the judges in full; consequently, several matters of interest are held over till next issue. ' UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, Second Circuit Before Waixace, Lacombe and Coxe, Circuit Judges. Thomas A. Edison, Complainant-Appellant, vs. The American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, Defendant-Appellee. This cause comes here upon appeal from a decree of the Cir- cuit Court, Southern District of New York, dismissing a bill in equity for infringement of a patent The patent is Re-issue No. 12,037, dated September 30, 1902, original No. 580.168 (August 31, 1897), to Thomas A. Edison for a kinetoscope. The opinion below will be found in 144 F. R, 121. The original patent was before this court in a suit by the same complainant against the same defendant reported 114 F. R., 926. The claims of the original patent were: t "1. An apparatus for effecting by photography a representa- tion suitable for reproduction of a scene including a moving object or objects, comprising a means for intermittently project- ing at such rapid rate as to result in persistence of vision images of successive positions of the object or objects in motion, as observed from a fixed and single point of view, a sensitized tape-like film and a means for so moving the film as to cause the successive images to be received thereon separately and in a single-line sequence. 2.'- An apparatus for taking photographs suitable for the exhibition of objects in motion, having ia combination a single camera, and means for passing a sensitized tape film at a high rate of speed across the lens of the camera, and for exposing suc- cessive portions of the film in.-rapid succession, substantially as set forth. ' " M 3- An apparatus for taking photographs"*£uitable for exhibi- tion of objects in motion, having in combination a single camera, and means for passing a sensitized tape-film across the lens of the camera at a high rate of speed and with an intermittent motion, and for exposing successive portions of the film during the periods of rest, substantially as set forth. "4. An apparatus for taking photographs suitable for the ex- hibition of objects in motion, having in combination a single camera, and means for passing a sensitized tape-film across the lens at a high rate of speed and with an intermittent motion, and for exposing successive portions of the film during the periods of rest the periods of rest being greater than the periods of motion, substantially as set forth. "5. An unbroken transparent or translucent tape-like photo- graphic film having thereon equidistant photographs of successive positions of an object in motion, all taken from the same point of view, such photographs being arranged in continuous straight- line sequence, unlimited in number save by the length of the film, substantially as described. "6. An unbroken transparent or translucent tape-like photo- graphic film provided with perforated edges and having thereon equidistant photographs of successive positions of an object in motion, all taken from the same point of view, such photographs being arranged in a continuous straight-line sequence, unlimited in number save by the length of the film, substantially as de- scribed." In the prior suit the circuit court sustained claims 1, 2, 3 and 5 and those only came before this court upon the appeal. It was held that the patentee was not entitled to such broad claims, the decree of the circuit court was reversed and the bill dismissed. Thereupon the patentee applied for and obtained a re-issue, in two patents, one for the film as a new article of manufacture (the subject of original claim 6), which is not involved in this case, and the other which is now sued upon. This re-issued patent contains four claims; the first three are as follows: "1. An apparatus for taking photographs suitable for the ex- hibition of objects in motion, having in combination a camera having a.single stationary lens; a single sensitized tape-film sup- ported on opposite sides of, and longitudinally movable with respect to, the lens, and having an intermediate section crossing the lens; feeding devices engaging such intermediate section of the film and moving the same across the lens of the camera at a high rate of speed and with an intermittent motion; and a shut- ter exposing successive portions of the film during the periods of rest, substantially as set forth. "2. _ An apparatus for taking photographs suitable for the exhibition of objects in motion, having in combination a camera having a single stationary lens; a single sensitized tape-film sup- ported on opposite sides of, and longitudinally movable with respect to, the lens, and having an intermediate section crossing the lens; a continuously rotating driving-shaft; feeding devices operated by said shaft engaging such intermediate section of the film and moving the same across the lens of the camera at a high rate of speed and with an intermittent motion; and a con- tinuously-rotating shutter operated by said shaft for exposing successive portions of the film during the periods of rest, sub- stantially as set forth. ". An apparatus for taking photographs suitable for the ex- hibition of objects in motion, having in combination a camera having a single stationary lens; a single sensitized tape-film sup- ported, on opposite sides of, and longitudinally movable with respect to, the lens, and having an intermediate section crossing the lens; a continuously rotating driving-shaft; feeding devices operated by said shaft engaging such intermediate section of the film and moving the same across the lens of the camera at a high rate of speed and with an intermittent motion; a shutter expos- ing successive portions of the film during the periods of rest; and a reel revolved by said shaft with variable speed for winding the film thereon after exposure, substantially as set forth." The fourth claim of the re-issued patent i3 identical with the fourth claim of the original. One of the alleged infringing . devices, that namely .jvhich, it is contended,* infringes only claims 1, 2 and 3, is the same device that was before the court in the first suit and is known as the biograph camera; the other alleged infringing device is known as the Warwick camera and it is contended infringes also claim 4. Lacombe, Circuit Judge. Upon the appeal in the first suit we discussed the prior art and the general character of the device sought to be patented at very great length. It is unnecessary to repeat that discussion; all that was said in the prior opinion, however, may be considered as embodied herein, since the conclusion hereinafter expressed is founded upon the findings then made and which nothing in the present record or argument induces us to qualify in any manner. We held that-Edison was "not a pioneer in the large sense of the term, or in the limited sense in which he would have been if he had ipvented the film. He was not the inventor of th* *