International projectionist (Jan-Dec 1935)

12 INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST July 1935 minal. Tracing outward from the arrowhead, the drawing is: down, left, up and right to the third prong from the left of the seven-prong switch assembly. Thence to the fourth prong from the left. Thence left, up, right and down to the left-hand prong of the upper three -prong assembly of key 479 GS. From the center prong of that assembly up, left, down, left, down and right to Fader Output Terminal 15. Therefore, just as on the Red side, whatever portion of the right-hand half of the horizontal resistor line is included between 0 and the arrowhead, is connected across the system amplifier input, through the series resistance wired to whichever fader point the arrowhead may be touching. With the arrowhead on Fader Point 0, the 190 ohms in series with that point is connected across the system amplifier input and 500 (or 499.90) ohms across each projector output. However, no sound is heard because no current flows in the 190 ohms in series with Fader Point zero, and the amplifier input does not bridge across any voltage drop, therefore no current flows in the amplifier's input transformer. 479K Key Circuit In physical construction this key is a double-throw toggle switch. The double arrowhead labelled "Red — White" indicates that the four long prongs may be pushed to either left or right. The two upper prongs carry no connections and may be disregarded. The two lower prongs serve to connect a third projector as a substitute for either of the other projectors, according to which way the switch is thrown. If the 479K key is operated to move the "Red — White" arrowhead leftward, no change takes place in the connections of the right-hand three-prong assembly: the prongs are bent a bit but the contacts remain as shown in the drawing. Consequently the white ungrounded line remains connected as it was, and the white projector will operate through the fader precisely as before. In the lefthand three prong assembly of this key, however, the circuit that was closed (to Red ungrounded input terminal) is opened, and contact is closed instead to No. 5 input terminal, the ungrounded input of the third projector. The Red projector output is therefore open-circuited, and the No. 3 projector operates through the Red side of the fader, precisely as if it were No. 1 projector. Operating the key to move the "Red — White" arrowhead toward the right leaves the connections of the red projector unchanged except for slightly bending the spring prongs, but substitutes Projector No. 3 for the white projector, which is simultaneously open-circuited. 479GS Key Circuits The more complicated left-hand key has three sets of prong assemblies: the lower left, seven prongs, and the upper and lower right of three prongs each. The upper left-hand prong has no con(Continued in Col. 1, next page) Development of the Motion Picture Projector By THOMAS ARMAT Nine out of ten projectionists, if asked who "invented" or developed the motion picture projector, likely would reply: "Thomas A. Edison." But he didn't; nor did he believe it possible to develop such a mechanism until he actually witnessed a demonstration. This and many other interesting points are included in the appended contribution by T. Armat, to whom is due the major share of credit for the development of a projector the basic features of which remain unchanged to this day. The Historical Committee of the S. M. P. E. deserves the thanks of the industry for this, to us at least, absorbingly interesting contribution to the literature of the art. — Editor. II THE Raff and Gammon licensing arrangement started off auspiciously and financial returns were satisfactory, but troubles developed shortly. None of my patents had been issued at that date, and the applications were still pending in the patent office, two of them involved in "interferences" which greatly delayed their issue. No patent protection could be given until patents were actually issued. Piratical machines began to appear, and, in the absence of patents, could not be stopped. Later on the Edison Company began to be slow in supplying films. Friction, for that reason among others, developed between the Edison Company and Raff and Gammon. Still later the Edison Co. began to market a machine that infringed my pending patents. As soon as my patents were issued I organized a company, to which I transferred my patents. Warnings were sent out to infringers, and suits were filed. In many cases the suits were rendered fruitless by the simple expedient of fading away on the part of the sued infringer. The Edison Co. was making and selling large numbers of machines that they called projector scopes which infringed no less than three of my patents. We notified users of the machines that they must promptly arrange to pay us royalties for their use or they would be sued for infringement and damages. The Edison Co. notified users of projectorscopes they had sold that they would be protected against any suits that we might bring. That made it necessary for us to sue the Edison Co. In the meantime a suit we had brought against the Biograph Co. reached its final stage and was decided in our favor, and the company was enjoined. On the strength of that decision an injunction was obtained against the Edison Co. The Edison Co. had pending in the Patent Office an application covering the only successful method of taking motion pictures and an application covering the perforated film. So long as the Edison Co. and my company were fighting each other, no exhibitor could give an exhibition without risk of being sued by one side or the other. I had pointed out a number of times to Edison the obvious advantages of our getting together on some basis that would not involve the sale of projection machines, but without avail. After we obtained the injunction against the Edison Co., they tried in various ways to obtain a license from my company under which they would be permitted to sell machines. To that I declined to agree. From the beginning I had refused to sell machines, or to license others to do so, for the reason that I felt that whatever monopoly we might be entitled to under our patents would be destroyed by any sale of machines; and I also felt that any profit we might make out of the sale of machines would not be remotely commensurate with the earning power of the machines themselves. I wanted a royalty from exhibitors, small enough not to be felt by them, but which in the aggregate would net a handsome income to my company. The suit against Biograph was for an injunction and damages of $150,000. Damages were also asked in the suit against Edison. Both companies posted bonds and prepared appeals. While damages in patent suits are rarely collectible, a favorable decision in an injunction suit where damages are claimed creates a very uncomfortable feeling on the part of the defeated party and the holders of any of their securities. The American Mutoscope and Biograph Co. had outstanding a bond issue of $200,000. Some of the bonds were held by the Empire Trust Co. of New York, who took notice of the success of our suit for injunction and damages against the Biograph Co. Among the stockholders of the Empire Trust was J. J. Kennedy, a very distinguished consulting engineer as well as a man of rare business ability, who was requested by the Empire Trust Co. to study the motion picture patent and commercial situation and work out a plan that would help Biograph and its bondholders out of their difficulties. Mr. Kennedy got in touch with Mr. H. N. Marvin, also an engineer of distinction {Continued on page 24)