Motion Picture News (Apr-Jul 1915)

122 ACCESSORY NEWS SECTION Vol. 11. No. 17. CONDUCTED BY HERBERT W. AND EM No agent is permitted to take subscriptions for Motion Picture News for less than the authorized rates. Have the agent taking your subscription show his letter of credentials and receipt book. — Projection Problems answered. Decision In Power-Baird Suit Handed Down In United States District Court THE decision in the case of the Nicholas Power Company, plaintiff, against the C. R. Baird Company and Chester R. Baird, defendant, before Judge D. J. Mayer of the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, which has been reported in detail previously in the News, has just been handed down. This suit covers Letters Patent No. 826,112, dated July 17, 1906, and Letters ? Patent 959,601, dated May 31, 1910, being patents covering the framing device for motion picture projection machines and the fire valves. These two patents are taken up separately by Judge Mayer in his decision, the framing device being the first, to be considered. Judge Mayer starts by quoting from the Nicholas Power Company patent and stating the points under claims 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the patent which are those directly in litigation and cover the framing device mechanism on the Power projection machine. The defenses are invalidity and non-infringement of patent. There is a history given of the conditions of the motion picture field from the time Mr. Power entered it. To quote from the decision, "The patent in suit is not directed to an entire moving picture projection apparatus, but to a portion of it and the claims in suit are all directed to the construction for permitting the framing of the picture. The Previous Art Defense "It will be appreciated, at the outset, that the subject matter involved delicate mechanism and accurate inter-relation, all looking to a result which would accomplish the illusion (if it may be so called) most effectively. In an art of this character and mechanism of this delicacy, sometimes the omission or addition of merely a single element rises to the dignity of invention, and it is with this appreciation and this mental attitude that the subject must be approached. "The prior art defense involved a consideration of the patents to Eberhard Schneider (U. S. Letters No. 647,529) and Prestwich (British) and several prior used machines produced and testified about. (a) "First Edison machine, all the parts except the aperture plate were stationarily mounted and the framing of the picture was accomplished by adjusting the aperture plate up or down as might be necessary for its opening to register with the picture. (b) "In the second Edison (Exhibit Q) the aperture plate was the only part of the machine to be fixed while the film feeding mechanism was adjustable up and down as might be necessary to bring the picture into registration with the lens and aperture plate. (c) "In the 'modified Edison' (Exhibit X) the machine frame is mounted on guide rods instead of run-ways. (d) "In the Schneider modified Edison (Exhibit C) the original rack and pinion for adjusting is replaced by a crank and screw. Schneider Missed Commercially Successful Machine (e) "The two early Power machines (Exhibits T and U) show the idea of the entire mechanism adjustable on its own front boards. "None of these structures shows the combination of the claims and each lacks many of the elements. It is enough to point out that, among other things, they do not have a separate shiftable carriage nor a shiftable intermediate gearing. (f) "The Eberhard Schneider machine (Exhibit B) — His fundamental and, in the art, advanced thought was to construct a machine having a stationary frame with fixed main shaft and stationary aperture plate in which the framing would be accomplished by adjusting the distance between the intermittent sprocket and the aperture plate. But when Schneider came to concrete his thought into a physical structure, he just missed making a machine which was commercially successful. Comparing Exhibit B with the machine of the Power patent, we find: "(1) That there is not the 'vertically adjustable carriage.' Instead, the shaft of Schneider's intermittent sprocket is carried by a pair of 'cheeks,' mounted to swing in the arc of a circle on the axis of the main shaft, and the whole arrangement is such that the adjustment of the cheeks swings the sprocket toward and away from the aperture which is formed in the frame above the main shaft. "(2) That in Schneider there is an oscillatory movement of the pair of cheeks, while in Power's the movement of the shiftable carriage is vertical. "(3) That in Schneider's, contrary to Power's, there is really no intermediate gear and no shiftable intermediate between the main driving gear and the film feeding mechanism, the latter being driven directly from the main shaft. "It is unnecessary to go on with the details, for, giving to the Power's the fair construction to which it is entitled, the Schneider Exhibit B cannot be successfully read against a single Power claim in controversy, nor can it be held that the Power mechanism is an equivalent of Exhibit B. "If, however, a doubt as to invention were entertained (and I entertain none), the remarkable commercial success of the Power would conclusively resolve the doubt." Judge Mayer then gives a short resume of the development of the various machines, and shows how Mr. Power, through his business ability, et cetera, made a commodity superior to the other prior used machines, and ends by saying : "I am fully convinced that the patent is meritorious and should be sustained." No Case of Direct Infringement Made Out "While the bill charges direct and contributory infringement, no case of direct infringement was made out, nor attempted, and only a single instance of alleged contributory infringement is testified to." Judge Mayer then takes up the question of Charles E. Schneider, a dealer in Springfield, Mass., who was incited by the Nicholas Power Company to write a letter to Mr. Baird, requesting parts which he states "I need for rebuilding two second-hand machines which I have on hand." This, Judge Mayer says, is a common method of catching patent infringements, in this case the manufacturer having "the right to sell the parts he advertises in his company's circulars so long as the sales are not for rebuilding." Judge Mayer goes on to say, "I believe that the word 'rebuilding' as used and placed in this letter, carried no emphasis to the mind of the reader. The parts shipped would, in no sense, rebuild the machines, and a busy business man would need a mental microscope to pick out the word 'rebuilding' in Schneider's letter as conveying to him what plaintiff contends. "It is enough for me to state that on the evidence in the case I am satisfied that the defendants have not intended to be parties to the rebuilding of plaintiff's machine ; have pursued a course of business quite to the contrary; and, in point of fact in the Schneider sale, were not guilty of contributory infringement."