We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
22
The Motion Picture Projectionist
April, 1929
i he Patent Situation
MOTION picture patent litigation, more or less dormant since the early days of the industry, has again come to play an extremely important part in the development of the business. Not since the days of the valiant stand of a few struggling independent inventors, film producers and distributors against the vicious edicts of the Motion Picture Patents Company — now defunct, happily— has the industry been so shaken by the reverberations of patent suits as now. Sound pictures, of course, are the root of all evils now arising from the welter of patent litigation within the industry. With the development of sound pictures — even a little before their birth — the industry graduated into "really" big business, with its inevitable Wall Street influence. This meant the influx into the industry of legal departments to whom patent litigation was, it might be said, second nature.
Patent suits are innumerable in their variety — ranging all the way from the strictly "on the level" kind to the prearranged brand through the mechanics of which the loser is pre-determined, in consideration of which (not forgetting the weak fight he puts up in court), a license to use certain patents is tossed his way, and the winners go away content with having the court action to cite as a very valuable precedent.
The small-fry infringers — John James of Coshocton and his ilk — are not even accorded the doubtful honor of being made the defendant in a patent suit. Mr. James and his tribe may run wild along the byways, sniping from this patent and that, and never be accorded sufficient attention to warrant their receiving even a harsh letter. When holders of valuable patents go a-hunting the sights on their guns are always adjusted so as to include only those who are commonly known as "big shots." This practice invariably doubles the fruits of victory, for the winners thereby gain not only their victory but much invaluable publicity as a result of their having hooked a "big one." This "scare" publicity is priceless.
The "Experts" Convene
Battling in this arena of patent suits we find the honest man and the charlatan, the wise man and the fool ; the one intent upon proving the right of his contentions and the other busy in beating his drum and stirring up a lot of noise — mostly bombast which issues from his pompous person as naturally as water from a faucet. Learned "authorities" contribute articles to the reviews and the trade papers, the while keeping a sharp eye open for possible retainer fees as an "expert" as a result of the publicity they have received from sleepy editors. This does not imply that all contributors of patent information are frauds ; not at all. But the woods are full of hicks, rubes and just plain ordi
By James J. Finn
nary sharpers who advance their claims of special knowledge with a nerve that is at once colossal and amazing.
Assiduous study of current patents and brushing up on the history of patent literature does not turn out an "expert." What does constitute an expert is the man who has accumulated his knowledge of the art through years of reading and collecting even the smallest scraps that have any bearing on the subject. Bibliography and intelligence make a patent authority — and most present-day "experts" have little of the former and even less of the latter.
All this nonsense is detrimental to the progress of the business. Sales of sound picture apparatus is being retarded greatly these days by the fear of the exhibitor that if he buys this, that or the other device, a patent suit will shortly loom on the horizon, the result of which will render his apparatus null and void and seriously endanger his chances of ever getting back the money he paid for it. Certain patent suits also have been known to serve no useful purpose other than to scare off prospective promoters of competitive systems.
The exhibitor mulls over the matter for a while, and then proceeds to spend his money to buy an outfit which he is certain will not be affected by the fluctuations of the patent market. Very often the apparatus is bought on the basis of "patent protection" rather than quality. Such a condition is rampant today in the motion picture industry.
The C Bias Situation
Amplification is the hub around which most current patent litigation revolves. Any amplifier, to function properly under ideal conditions, must have in its circuit a "grid leak" (non-inductive high resistance) and a potential. This potential is known as "C bias." The former has been in use now for quite a number of years, and its use is common practice now in radio circuits as well as in amplifiers using three and four-element tubes as a means of amplifying sound or electrical impulses.
The use of a C bias potential is decidedly important, and without it the vacuum tube will not function properly, which fact is common knowledge in radio circles and in the sound picture field.
Many attempts have been made to obviate the use of the grid leak and the C bias potential, but these contributions to the knowledge of the art soon fell to the wayside because of the poor amplifying results obtained — and this despite the fact that some of the best scientific minds in the country were concentrated on the task.
The use of the C bias potential and the grid leak is vested solely in fundamental patents which are now held by certain interests. These patents sew up the right to the use of the C bias and the grid leak
most effectively. The patents naturally constitute a big stick, so to speak, which may be used against anyone attempting to use them for any purpose whatsoever.
Prior References
It is interesting to note that credence is attached in some circles to reports that the use of the C bias potential and the grid leak has been described in technical literature prior to the date of conception of the inventions as set forth in the patents now held by certain interests. It is intimated that the subject is described in detail in the technical literature of the art, especially so in the German literature, where so many valued contributions have been made to the art prior to the issuance of the present patents.
This literature is dug away in the archives of the technical press, and it is only accessible to those bookworms who are conversant with the subject matter as well as with the art itself. The holders of the existing patents on the C bias and the grid leak naturally do not attach much importance to the existence of this data, but it would not be surprising if the material were available right under the very noses of those patent attorneys who rush about so madly in quest of citations for their clients and who emit so much steam which, fortunately, is soon dissipated by the decisions of the courts.
So much then for the C bias and the grid leak. These points are about the only thing of importance which are litigated these days in the sound picture field. The rest of the claims and counterclaims are so much hot air, pounded out by some frantic publicity agent and issued for what "scare-effect" it may have.
Settlement Demanded
Within the industry the demand is growing slowly but surely that the matter be settled once and for all, and that quickly, so that the business may regain its even keel and proceed with the business of selling admission tickets. This lecturing of exhibitors, these gaudy announcements of "our patent rights this" and "our patent rights that" contribute nothing to the industry but uncertainty and its resultant poor business.
If all the claims of certain patent holders were chucked into a basket and shaken well, with the valid claims permitted to sift through to the bottom, there would be a vacuum at the bottom.
So then, when next we hear the rumblings of an approaching patent suit, it would be best to compose ourselves and sit back calmly with the assurance that what certain interests hold in the way of patent rights are not likely to be invalidated by the efforts of any of their present competitors, and that all this shouting about infringement (excluding the C bias situation), is just so much hot air.