Every now and then somebody else comes along who sees it pretty much the way I do:
Quickly the story moves on to debates regarding the legal issues of patents and intellectual property rights, both important topics, but science is relegated to a secondary consideration. Bizarrely, though Farnsworth won his first courtroom patent battle with RCA (though later losses drained his assets), the play depicts him as losing, obviously for dramatic effect. But the fact that such an artistic work, which seeks to bring Farnsworth to a wider audience, would engage in such blatant revision of history, casts doubts on the legitimacy of the entire venture.
Me, I just don’t get how “dramatic license” can ever go so far as to permit the reversal of fundamental facts of history. And like the man says, the willingness to do so casts doubt on the rest of the enterprise.
2 thoughts on “Murky History of Television Gets Murkier | LiveScience”
Farnsworth invented the dissector tube which could pick up films or slides satisfactorily, but required huge amounts of light and bizarre makeup to define features in ordinary scenes. His system would never have been practical for general usage. He does deserve credit for his invention, however, and was screwed out of much of his financial and historical due by the David Sarnoff and the RCA machine.
very interesting and in depth information on the subject of the inventor of televsion as a functioning unit of communication
and i am afraid that the research was done only from an american perspective
proven that the television was alive and well in post world one one germany in the tiny village of heiglenstadt (sP?) and i will do my research on this completely….lets put the record straight