The Nickelodeon (Jan-Mar 1911)

46 THE NICKELODEON. Vol. V, No. 2. Preliminary Injunctions on Cameras The United States Circuit Court at New York has granted a preliminary injunction in the case of the Motion Picture Patents Company vs. the Champion Film Company. Judge Lacombe states his opinion as follows : This is an application for preliminary injunction under Re-issue Patent No.. 12037 to Thomas A. Edison for a kinetoscope, which was sustained and its claims construed by the Circuit Court of Appeals in this circuit in Edison v. Am. Mutoscope & B. Co. 151 F. R. 767. An earlier decision of that court discussed the original patent, 114 F. R. 926. Nothing that was said in either of these opinions need be repeated here; it is assumed that they will be consulted. They describe the device of the patent and analyzed the claims so fully, illustrating the decision by describing the cameras which were held, the one to infringe, the other not to, that it seems not difficult to apply the principles of the decision to the Gaumont and Champion-Gaumont cameras now before the court. The differences between these two alleged infringing cameras are unimportant, defendant apparently does not contend otherwise, therefore this discussion will be confined to the Champion-Gaumont type, of which an operative camera has been submitted for inspection. The film moving mechanism of both, however, is so well shown in the drawing and blue print, filed with the papers that their operation may be easily understood. The film passes from the delivery roll to a delivery wheel whose sprockets engage positively with holes in the sides of the film, this wheel revolves, not intermittently, but continuously, and in operation there is always a loop or slack part of the film between it and the film guide. In consequence the delivery wheel does not itself advance the film through the guide. In the Mutoscope case it was held that these circumstances did not negative infringement. The film passes through the guide, .around a cam eccentrically mounted on a continuously moving wheel, to the take-up reel where it engages with sprockets, the latter reel revolving continuously. The operation is as follows. The device being at rest there is the loop or slack above the guide entirely free to be drawn down through the guide, the same as in the Biograph and in the Warwick cameras, which were considered in the Mutoscope case. In the Biograph instrument this slack was pulled through by two friction rollers revolving continuously, the movement of the film being intermittently checked by a so-called tension leaf. "The engagement with the film was wholly frictional; — no such interlocking as will hold the film firmly advancing it with mathematical accuracy; there was the possibility of slip." In the Warwick the film was pulled through by a bifurcated fork which engaged with holes and advanced the film mathematically a certain distance and then disengaged; the court of appeals held that the bifurcated fork was a fair equivalent of the wheel with sprockets. In the Champion-Gaumont when at rest the film is stretched taut between the guide and the take-up sprocket wheel, resting snugly against the cam. We may assume that at that time the outer edge of the cam is on the side of the wheel furthest away from the film. It's position is not essential, substantially the same cycle of movement may be worked out if it be in the reverse position. The machine being started what happens in a given space of time? The moving sprocket wheel revolves through a predetermined arc and, carrying the film on its sprockets, advances the film a predetermined distance. During the same time the outer edge of the eccentric cam is brought into engagement with the taut film and, revolving, pushes it out a distance predetermined by the amount of the cam's eccentricity. The film thus pushed out_ cannot come from the side of the take-up wheel where it is held firmly on sprockets, it can readily come and does come out of the film-guide, the slack above the guide allowing it to move easily forward. As the revolving eccentric cam recedes to the inner side of its wheel axis it leaves the film which it has pushed out and for a brief interval there is no movement of the film out of the guide, because the cam is no longer pushing on it. "and the sprocket wheel cannot null on it till it has first taken no slack. During that penod the film is at rest for receiving impressions from the lens. Defendant contends that this operation of advancing the film is whollv frictional, that there is every possibility to slip and that the spacing cannot be mathematically ac curate. This contention is not found persuasive. There is friction between the cam and the film but it is very different from the action of two rollers whose frictional contact alone gives a grip and produces a pull. One end of the film (the part on the sprocket wheel) is firmly held, it cannot slip back and in reality it is this which causes it to advance when the cam pushes it. It must advance or break. I find it impossible from a study of the drawings or from a manipulation of the exhibit to see any possibility of slip. Why the spacing should not be mathematically accurate is not apparent. The arc through which the sprocket wheel will move in a given time is predetermined, the equivalent in linear movement of the film is known. The additional length of film which will be hauled out of the guide to accommodate the eccentric cam is also predetermined by the measure of the cam's eccentricity. The total distance the film will advance past the lens, being the sum of these two predetermined items, is itself predetermined. The period of rest may also be predetermined, it would seem with mathematical accuracy. It is the time necessary for a sprocket wheel, of a given diameter revolving at a given speed, to reel up the amount of film required to accommodate a protruding cam, the extent of whose eccentricity is accurately known. The conclusion is reached that the Champion-Gaumont and the Gaumont machines infringe. It is conceded that the Pathe machine, one of_ which is owned by defendant, also infringes. This and its Champion-Gaumont may, as suggested, be impounded in the custody of defendant's counsel until final hearing. Preliminary injunction may issue. This decision was followed a few days later by a preliminary injunction against the Yankee Film Company, William Steiner, Herbert Miles, C. V. Henkel and Joseph Miles. Judge Lacombe said: The defense of failure to disclaim as to claim four was: disposed of in decision on the demurrer. The defense of prior invention of Friese-Green. now presented for the first time after the patent has been for several years in litigation and long since sustained by the Circuit Court of Appeals, is one to be passed upon at final hearing. The defense that the suit against the Mutoscope Company, in which the Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the validity of the patent, was a collusive one must also be reserved for final hearing. As to infringement, defendants have been engaged in one way or another in having moving pictures taken by two different cameras or in selling or leasing the reproduction of exposures thereon. Apparently, on their own admissions, they were satisfied with the statements of the persons taking the pictures that the machines did not infringe; they took no steps to assure themselves that these statements were correct. It was so easy to demonstrate non-infringement by showing either that the film moved continuously or that the lens (or lenses) moved — a demonstration which might have been made to the court, if not to the adversary — that the failure to do so arouses suspicion. Undoubtedly the detectives who testify for complainant were able to give but a hasty glance at the interior on the two occasions when the covering cloth was disarranged, but the affidavit of the defendant, Henkel, in connection with the other testimony seems to indicate sufficiently to make out a prima facie case that those two cameras are really of the Gaumont or socalled "beater" type which have been held to infringe in Motion Picture Patents Company vs. the Champion Film Companv, recently decided. Injunction may be taken against all the defendants. Further action in these cases will be closely watched by the trade. At a meeting of the moving picture proprietors of Toronto, an association will be formed which is planned eventually to become a provincial body. It is claimed that the police differ as to what constitutes an immoral picture and the moving picture men want a definite ruling in this matter.