Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-03-18
EASTMANS WILL
J CARRY FILM CASE
! TO HIGHEST COURT
Long Fight of Goodwin Heirs
ON Patent Claims to Be
Protracted.

NEW YORK, March 1s-The East
man Kodak Company, of Rochester,
~ A. does not intend to make the
helrs of Rev. Hannibal Goodwin, of
newark, y. j., Independently wealthy,
as was inferred from recent deci-
sion OF the United States Court of
appeals, until the United States Su-
preme Court has passed upon the
matter, according to statement
made yesterday by George Eastman,
president of the company, at the Bel
mont Hotel
Ihere are lots of fairy tales going
the rounds about the Goodwin pat
enI, SAID Mr.. Eastman, who was ac-
companied by his attorney, J. j. Ken
nedy, of 220 Broadway. 1--WE were
making and marketing films under
our own patent for thirteen years
before the Goodwin patent was is
SUED. Mr.. Goodwin never made or
Solo foot of film in his life. nor have
ms helfs or assigns. He spent SIS, 900
trylng to make film by the process
described in his patent and failed.
- An application will be made to the
United States Supreme Court for O
writ of certiorari and if the writ is
GRANTED our attorneys will press the
mater promptly before the highest
court
1t is not true that the Eastman
company has made vast sums out
of the Goodwin patent. We have al
ways made a film and are still maxi
ing one that in no way infringes on
the Goodwin patent.
In 1887 Mr. Goodwin made appli-
cation for patent on a film with q
nltrocellulose base. but it was denied
because no new invention was shown
In 1888 we marketed a roll film and
IN 1889 obtained a patent for trans
parent film. our application giving in
detail the composition and the method
of manufacture.
1T VIII be noted that nine DAYS
after ouI patent was issued the Rev.
MI. Goodwin renewed his application
and added the word 'camphor.'
which did not appear in his original
application. He continued to work
at his process. but never was able
TO make a salable foot of film. His
patent was granted in 1898 In the
meantime we had made a commercial
success of film manufactured under
our process.
Even after the granting of the
Goodwin patent no film was made by
Rev Mr.. Goodwin, although in 1900
he spent $4,000 trying to make
marketable film. In all that time
Mr.. Goodwin knew we were making
and selling film and he never tried to
stop us. He did not make any claim
against lis Not until 1902. after his
death, was action begun AGAINST us
under the Goodwin patent. The heirs
of Mr.. Goodwin did not bring action
against us. The action was begun
by the persons obtaining possession
Of the Goodwin patent rights.
Just to show you how woefully
astray are certain features of the
claims made by the owners OF the
Goodwin patent, I cite the fact that
IN the Goodwin application fusel oil
is named as solvent of nitrocellu-
lose, which it is not. In the Eastman
process fusil oil is used as q dehy-
drafting agent, very small quantity,
however, getting into the solution.
The use of fusil oil and camphor.
which later. by the way. the East
man company has always usedSas u
softener. are the only articles In the
Eastman. process which, it is said,
follow that of Mr.. Goodwin. 1t is
for that reason only, concerning a
n1ere detail in the manufacture of
films. that it can be said we have
benefited by the Goodwin process"