Television digest with AM-FM reports (Jan-Dec 1951)

6 when it expands to a national service. Movie industry's income is down now, he said, because of (a) drop of 50-60% in returns from foreign shows, and (b) drop of 30% in domestic attendance. COLOR CASE PUZZLES SUPREME COURT: Supreme Court granted more delay to compatible color proponents this week — by withholding start of commercial CBS color until final decision — while CBS advocates labored desperately to stave off still more delay. During March 26-27 oral argiament, it was obvious that greatest fear of U.S. Solicitor General Philip Perlman and CBS's Samuel Rosenman was that Court might send case back to lower court or to FCC for more thorough review or reconsideration. If anyone predicts Court's decision with accuracy, it's sheer luck, since justices' questions had both sides alternating between exhilaration and dejection. Miatever the outcome, students will certainly find case an extraordinary one — in Court's obvious bewilderment 'about what it's required to do or can do; in lower court's "decision without a decision," (Vol. 6:46) ; in speed with which it reached highest Court ; in time allowed for argument (5 hours) ; in maze of technical jargon; in spate of cross-allegations regarding motives. Most perplexing to justices was element of haste — being told that the "when" of their decision is as important as the "what". And, permeating whole fracas, was the unspoken fact of Korean war's impact on industry — the simple fact that "color now" is academic regardless how the bitter litigation turns out. Decision may come any Monday from now on. Court term ends in June, and new term starts Oct. 8. Traditionally, Court gets out decision during term in which case is heard, but we could elicit no prediction from CBS's Rosenman, Emerson's Rif kind or RCA's Cahill. * * * * Some strong minority opinions are expected, since each justice, like the fabled blind men, seemed to perceive a different part of the color "elephant". Justice Frankfurter seemed to smell "monopoly like the BBC" in FCC's practice of setting up single standard, feared practice tends to negate "the history of science in achieving the impossible." In other comments, he seemed to sustain Commission's powers of discretion. Justice Black was also concerned whether FCC had right to fix single standard and whether Commission wasn't foreclosing scientific advancement. Justice Jackson, silent during most of argument, finally asked Rosenman: "What is this court supposed to decide? We're not technically qualified, of course. If we're not supposed to decide which system is best, what's left for us to decide?" Case should never have reached courts, replied Rosenman. The "happy solution" — a \iniversal receiver which would get both CBS and RCA color — was diligently probed by several justices inquiring into possibility of multiple standards. Rosenman said such receiver isn't possible, while Cahill reported that RCA had introduced diagram of such set during hearing. Justices Vinson and Clark seemed to lean towards CBS at times. Former asked Cahill; "Doesn't FCC have the responsibility of seeing good color goes on the air?" Latter appeared impressed with CBS's argument of convertibility of existing sets, unexcited about compatibility argument, told Cahill: "I want color. That's the objective, isn't it? How much will your color sets cost?" Cahill had some trouble, since RCA's major answers to convertibility and price have come since color decision. CBS was also bursting with desire to tell about post-hearing developments — such as 17-in. drum (Vol. 6:52). Lov;er court's decision obviously irritated several justices, notably Jackson. He considered lower court quite remiss in passing the buck and frankly admitting it. Other justices pointed to recent Universal Camera and Pittsburgh Steamship cases, in which they had held lower courts must really dig into facts. Arguments of both sides were much same as in Chicago court (Vol. 6:46). RCA stressed compatibility and quality of its system, contrasted it with incompatibility