The phonoscope (Nov 1896-Dec 1899)

8 THE PHONOSCOPE prohibitive. In this case about $6,300 is what was actually spent on the lighting system for the two-hours' run. With the aid of the reflectors there was the equivalent of 800,000 candle power actually concentrated on the ring. While this amount of illumination as compared with the sun would appear to be highly insufficient, nevertheless, with the aid of specially rapid lenses and the most scientific development of the negatives, results were actually obtained which are superior to any ever obtained by sunlight. The system of developing the negatives and also the positives printed from them was very elaborate, and by dint of working day and night with a force of expert photographers increased fourfold over the regular staff, the Company was able to produce a positive film ready for projection on the screen in ten days. Xeoal IRottces SUPERIOR COURT OP CINCINNATI . The Edison Phonograph Company, r vs. Iesen & Company. Motion For Temporary Restraining Order. Opinion of the Court. The plaintiff in this case claims that by purchase from the receiver of the Ohio Phonograph Company it came to be the owner of all its property including its franchises and every other right, and among other things the exclusive right to use, rent or sell in the State of Ohio Phonographs and Graphophones manufactured under the patents of Thomas A. Edison until March 26, 1903. Plaintiff further claims that the North American Phonograph Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey came to be the owner and controlled the patents of Thomas A. Edison relating to the Phonograph, and that the said North American Phonograph Company transferred its rights to the Ohio Phonograph Company for the state of Ohio, and that the latter company's rights passed by a receivers sale to the plaintiff. That subsequent!}' the North American Phonograph Company went into the hands of a receiver, and its property of even kind was purchased at judicial sale by Thomas A. Edison, who subsequently organized a company called the National Phonograph Company for the purpose of manufacturing and selling the same instruments for which the plaintiff owns the territorial rights in Ohio. That the defendants in this case are engaged in business in Cincinnati and that with the knowledge of plaintiff's rights are confederating with the National Phonograph Company and the said Thomas A. Edison to violate the rights of plaintiff and have been for some time purchasing and selling, and unless restrained, will continue to purchase and sell in Ohio Phonographs and Graphophones from the said National Company and the said Thomas A. Edison. The defendants allege and make affidavit to the effect that they buy the instruments they sell in New Jersey of the company with which said Edison is associated, and that they are ignorant of any violation of contract in so doing. The state courts have jurisdiction to hear and determine questions of contract with respect to patents which do not involve the validity of the patents. In Keeler, vs. Standard Folding Bed Company, 157 U. S. 659 the complainants were assignees for the state of Massachusetts, of certain letterspatent granted to one Welch for an improvement in wardrobe-bedsteads. The Welch Folding Bed Company owned the patent rights for the state of Michigan. The defendants purchased a carload of said beds from the Welch Folding Bed Company, at Grand Rapids, Michigan, for the purpose of selling them in Massachusetts and afterwards sold them there and were still engaged in selling such beds in Boston. It was held in that case that the defendants having purchased the patented articles in Michigan from the assignee of the patent for the territory included in that state, had a right to sell them anywhere within the United States, including Massachusetts, where the patent rights had been assigned to another assignee ; that one who buys patented articles of manufacture from one authorized to sell them at the place where they are sold becomes possessed of an absolute property in such articles unrestricted in time or place. In the decision of this case, however, the Court leaves open, because not presented by the case, the question whether a purchaser who knows his vendor is violating his contract may retain the purchase and resell the article. In the case at bar the allegations of the plaintiff's petition are sufficiently broad not only probably to present this question, but the further question of fact whether the defendant and Thomas A. Edison and the company with which he is associated are not acting together in a combination against the rights of plaintiff. But the defendants deny any such knowledge or combination, and allege on the contrary that they buy the instruments they sell in New Jersey from said companies, in entire ignorance of the fact that plaintiff has any contract with the parties from whom they purchase ; and allege that no one but themselves is interested in their business. On a motion for a temporary restraining order where the evidence is in the form of affidavits, it is impossible for me to decide that the statements of the plaintiff are true and the statements of the defendants are false. Upon final hearing, such issue, if controlling, may be determined with more confidence as to the correctness of the determination. For the reasons stated, the motion to grant a temporary restraining order will be overruled. C. W. Baker, for Plaintiff. Howard W. Hayes, of Newark, N. J., W. P. Biddle, Peck & Shaffer, for Defendants. Decrees have just been entered in the United States Circuit Court for the district of New Jersey, which it is expected will have a marked effect on the'rapidly growing business of making records for talking-machines. The decrees are signed by Judge Kirkpatrick in suits brought by the American Graphophone Company against the United States Phonograph Company, et at. The suits were based on the fundumental patents owned by the Graphophone Company and which, it is claimed are the foundation of the existing art of recording and reproducing speech and other sounds. The charges against the Phonograph Company allege infringement by the manufacture, use and sale of so-called duplicates of sound records and the use of the machines known as duplicators. A similiar decree has been filed in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against Thomas E. Challenger, enjoining him from infringing the Graphophone Company's patents. Ipbonoovapb a IHuisance ? Decision of The Court Says That It Is New Orleans, La. — Persons who own and operated pianos, organs, violins, Phonographs or other musical instruments in their places of business or private residences, had best keep on good terms with their neighbors and the police, otherwise they are liable to be taken into -a recorder's court and fined for "disturbing the peace." Doubtless, since the decision rendered in one such case in the Second Recorder's Court recently, a number of affidavits charging disturbance of the peace will follow. Sergeant J. H. Jagot, acting under instructions, made an affidavit in the Second Recorder's Court some days ago against John Cuccia, proprietor of a baroom-on Hospital and Decatur Streets, charging him with violating City Ordinance No. 3,680, C. S., relative to disturbing the peace on premises by using a Phonograph. "Despite the fact that a permit to operate the instrument had been issued by the Mayor and the accused had also secured the signatures of a large majority of the residents in the immediate neighborhood to a petition for a renewal of the permit, after hearing two or three witnesses for the prosecution, Judge Aucoln fined the accused $2.50 or ten days, declaring that the law required it and he only could follow the law. Judge Thos. J. Ford, attorney for the accussed, gave notice of an appeal from the ruling and will test the matter in a higher court. Judge Ford made a very able argument on behalf of his client, and asked why it was that affidavits had not been made against the operators of Phonographs in other sections of the city. An Instrument that Enables a Person to Look Underground Frank Harvey, a young French-Canadian living in Lowell, Mass., is the author of an invention which on paper is destined to become still more celebrated than the X-rays. The invention consists in a sort of a telescope, by means of which a person can look through the earth just as well as one can now see .through the human body with the X-rays. It is a very delicate and complicated instrument, and the inventor has been experimenting with it in a quiet manner for many months and has in the meantime greatly perfected it. He has now applied for a patent in this country', England, France, Germany and other foreign countries. Hugo A. Duquque, of this city is looking after his interests, and recently showed a picture of the new insrument. It is claimed for this instrument that it will allow one to see through rocks and earth even as far as a hundred feet, according to the strength of the light used. Electric light is the means of lighting the tube. With an ordinary candle power the instrument will allow human vision to penetrate through the earth as far as ten or twelve feet. But, like the X-rays, the instrument cannot send its rays through metals. They pass through water, earth, rocks, etc., but are stopped by copper, iron, lead, gold, silver and other metals. If it is proved that it comes up to all that is claimed in its favor it will be of great use to clam diggers and pursuers of the angle worm for fish bait. Its inventor is a well-known resident of Lowell, and he was always known for his inventive genius. He is very confident in the qualities of his instrument and determined to put it before the public