The motion picture projectionist (Nov 1931-Jan 1933)

30 Motion Picture Projectionist February, 1932 HIGH INTENSITY SPOTLIGHT MORE AND BETTER STAGE LIGHTING AT LESS EXPENDITURE OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY. MOST REMARKABLE RESULTS ON LARGE STAGE SETS. HALL & CONNOLLY, Inc. 24 Van Dam St. New York, N. Y. Universal Film Splicing Machine MODEL NO. 3 • Pat. March 22:22 First-Class Results on New or Old Film Permanent Gauge No Adjusting FOR THEATRES, EXCHANGES LABORATORIES, SCHOOLS Price $6.oo GENERAL MACHINE CO., INC. 816-826 East 140th St., NEW YORK, N. Y. For sale by all Supply Dealers TALKING PICTURES By Bernard Brown A detailed discussion of the principles of construction and operation of sound film apparatus including a complete history of its development. Of great importance is the full account of R.C.A. power system and the Western Electric speaker unit. Specially valuable for operators, technicians, and also the general reader. Many illustrations and charts. $3.00. TELEVISION-TODAY and TOMORROW By Sydney A. Moseley and H. J. Write for descriptive lists ' Barton-Chapple. $2.50. ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, 2 West 45th Street, New York invention known as an "Evidence of Conception" and sign and date it before a notary and retain such papers in the event of an interference proceeding later. This might prove priority of conception and entitle you to the patent over a claimant. Q. 2 — I have just been to Washington and admired the Grecian architecture of our Patent Office Building. Please let me know how old it is. A. 2 — The present building was built and has been occupied since about 1840. Prior to that time the Patent Department was first in Blodgett's Hotel on E street between Seventh and Eighth. This building was purchased in 1810 and occupied by the Patent Office and the Post Office until it burned, December 15, 1836, destroying seven thousand models. It was the only public building not burned by the British in 1814. Patent Interference Q. 3 — What is a patent interference proceeding? A. 3 — An interference is a proceeding between two or more claimants for a patent to the same invention to determine which of them is entitled to the patent. These proceedings are highly technical in character and their necessity arises through the simultaneous working of more than one inventor in the same field. Because every invention is a gradual evolution due to what has been invented before, and also to public need of a new article, it often happens that two or more inventors working independently bring out the same idea at the same time. This brings on the proceeding known as an "interference." Alexander Graham Bell was only a few hours ahead of Elisha Gray in recording his invention of the telephone and the question of the right to a monopoly on the patent was long in interference. Three inventors invented photography in 1839, and two besides Edison claimed invention of the phonograph in 1877. There were two rival claimants for the typewriter as well as for the stereoscope. In more recent years long-drawn-out contests had first to be decided to determine the first inventor of patents for the gas engine between Daimler and Seldon. It was largely by the proceeding known as an interference together with its attendant litigation later that these competing rights were finally determined. Q. 4 — Can a patent be invalid before it has been tested in court? A. 4 — No. All patents are prima facie valid until proven otherwise. The grant of the patent carries with it the presumption of its validity and this is so strong that the burden of proof upon a defendant to establish the defenses that attack the validity of the patent is the same as that upon the prosecution in a criminal case. Q. 5 — Is there any way to prevent immediately the infringement of a patent which has not been adjudicated