# United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.

> District Court, D. Delaware · December 14, 1953 · 118 F. Supp. 41

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2281953

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
- **Court:** District Court, D. Delaware
- **Decided:** December 14, 1953
- **Citations:** 118 F. Supp. 41; 99 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 462; 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4323
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Leahy
- **Judges:** Leahy
- **Cited by:** 31 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2281953

## Opinion text

*45
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
COMPARISON OF THE ECONOMIC AND LEGAL CONCEPTS OF MONOPOLY.
THE PRESENT ECONOMIC AND LEGAL VIEWS OF MONOPOLY AND COMPETITION
a. Competition and monopoly in the economic sense.
b. The competition intended by the Sherman Act.
c. The economic view of the effect of potential competition upon monopoly.
d. The economic view of the effect of substitute products upon monopoly.
PART I — CELLOPHANE.
A. DuPONT’S POSITION DOES NOT VIOLATE § 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.
1. DuPONT DOES NOT HAVE MONOPOLY POWER.
a. Plaintiff must establish duPont has sufficient power arbitrarily to raise prices or to exclude competitors.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
I. Description of Defendant duPont (Findings 1-6).
II. Description of Cellophane (Findings 7-12).
III. DuPont’s Entry Into the Cellophane Business and Organization of duPont Cellophane Company (Findings 13-36).
IV. The “Market Setting” in Which Cellophane is Sold (Findings 37-79).
V. DuPont Competed by Research to Improve Quality and Lower Cost (Findings 80-122).
VI. DuPont Competed by Lowering Prices (Findings 123-149).
VII. Competition Between Cellophane and Other Flexible Packaging Materials (Findings 150-278).
SPECIFIC USES:
1. White Bread.
2. Specialty Breads.
3. Caice and Sweet Goods.
4. Meat.
5. Candy.
6. Crackers and Biscuits.
7. Frozen Foods.
8. Potato Chips, Pop Corn and Snacks.
9. Cereals.
10. Fresh Produce.
11. Paper Goods and Textiles.
12. Cigarettes.
13. Butter.
14. Chewing Gum.
15. Other Food Products.
16. Other Tobacco Products.
17. Cheese.
18. Oleomargarine.
*46
VIII. Results of duPont’s Competition With Other Materials (Findings 279-292).
IX. DuPont Competed With Sylvania (Findings 293-330).
X. The Basic Moistureproof Patents (Findings 831-339).
XI. DuPont Did Not Engage in Predatory Practices as Alleged.
A. DuPont’s decisions as to changes in its business capacity were made on the basis of proper business considerations, and not to suppress competition or to create artificial shortages (Findings 340-353).
B. Potential competitors were not excluded (Findings 354-388).
C. Distribution outlets were not controlled (Findings 389-455).
D. Patents were not abused (Findings 456-532).
XII. DuPont Did Not Conspire to Monopolize.
A. With Sylvania (Findings 533-591).
1. Patent License Agreement (Findings 533-583).
2. Prices (Findings 584-591).
B. With foreign concerns to exclude imports (Findings 592-645).
XIII. DuPont Did Not Attempt and Is Not Now Attempting to Monopolize.
A. General (Findings 646-660).
B. Olin license (Findings 661-686).
XIV. DuPont Has Not Monopolized (Findings 687-732).
CAPS AND BANDS (Findings 733-819).
OTHER FACTS (Findings 820-834).
CONCLUSIONS OF THE MASTER FACTS (Findings 835-854).
RESUMPTION OF THE OPINION.
b. Competitive conditions preclude acquisition of market control and hence of monopoly powers over cellophane.
i. “Market Setting”.
ii. Candy — A Case History.
iii. Testimony op Independent Witnesses.
c. DuPont has not “power to raise cellophane prices”.
d. DuPont has not the “power to exclude competition”.
1. General.
2. Potential Competitors.
3. Patents.
4. Sylvania Competition.
e. Application of recognized economic tests further evidences the lack of monopoly power.
*47
2. DuPONT’S POSITION IS NOT TO BE ATTACKED BECAUSE IT, RESULTS FROM TECHNICAL SKILL AND COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY.
a. The moistureproof patent is, I conclude, a defense.
b. Monopolization requires a factual showing of illegality.
c. Technical skill and other competition were responsible for duPont’s position in the field.
B. IS ORIGIN OF DuPONT’S POSITION LAWFUL?
C. WAS DuPONT’S POSITION MAINTAINED BY PREDATORY ASSERTION OF MONOPOLY POWER?
1. TESTS TO BE APPLIED.
2. ALLEGED SUPPRESSION OF SYLVANIA.
a. The Moistureproof Patent License Agreement.
b. The Alleged Price Agreement.
3. PATENT PRACTICES.
1. Ultra-Violet Light License.
2. Ribbon Licenses.
3. Ethylene Glycol License.
4. Marathon License.
5. The Sealing Licenses.
6. Interferences.
7. Tying Provisions.
4. CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTION OUTLETS.
5. EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF IGNORES.
PART II — CAPS AND BANDS.
NO FACTUAL BASIS EXISTS FOR CLAIMING A VIOLATION OF § 2 AS TO CAPS AND BANDS.
CONCLUSION OF LAW.
LEAHY, Chief Judge.
This is a civil suit by United States of America under § 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., charging defendant with monopolizing, attempting to monopolize and combining and conspiring to monopolize trade and commerce among the several states of the United States in cellophane and caps and bands. The Act of July 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 209 , commonly known as the Sherman Act as amended, provides in part:
“Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemean- or * * *. [ 15 U.S.C.A. § 2 ].
******
“Sec. 4. The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney-General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. * * * [15 U.S. C.A. § 4.]”
This case was instituted originally in the District Court of the United States
*48
for the District of Columbia on December 13, 1947. On April 28, 1949, the case was transferred to the District of Delaware.
Defendant, E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company, is a Delaware corporation. It is successor to duPont Cellophane Company, Inc. Throughout the period covered by the complaint, it or its predecessors manufactured and sold, in interstate and foreign commerce, regenerated cellulose in the form of film (cellophane) and in the form of bands. Prior to the filing of the complaint in this case, it also manufactured and sold cellulosic caps.
DuPont entered the cellophane business in 1923. It collaborated, under written agreements with La Cellophane (a subsidiary of the Comptoir which is the largest French rayon producer), in establishing the first duPont cellophane company. In 1929 duPont Cellophane Company, Inc., was reincorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of duPont. In 1936, duPont took over the operation of this business and dissolved duPont Cellophane Company, Inc.
In addition to La Cellophane, the following European producers have been named as co-conspirators but not party defendants: British Cellophane, Ltd. (England); Canadian Industries, Ltd. (Canada); Kalle & Co. (Germany); Viscose Francaise (France); and Viscose Development Company, Ltd. (England) .
Plaintiff’s argument and briefs treated in a highly interesting fashion the comparison of the economic and legal concepts of monopoly. But the final legal definition of the economic view of monopoly is to be left for decision by the Supreme Court.
COMPARISON OF THE ECONOMIC AND LEGAL CONCEPTS OF MONOPOLY.
Economic philosophies concerning monopoly and what should be done about it are legion; no one view can be said to be “the economic” concept. While these philosophies can not be classified into air-tight compartments, they do fall into distinct schools of thought. These schools are presently engaged in debate over the degree of monopoly power which is economically desirable and which the law should permit. The economic discussion had its genesis in an attempt to bridge what was believed to be a gap between the legal and economic concepts of monopoly. This discussion has resulted in some agreement among economists upon classifications of various types of competition which exist in the market today, but in sharp disagreement upon their significance as indicia of monopoly.
Plaintiff contrasted first the legal and economic concepts of competition and monopoly as presently understood, and as affected by potential competition and the presence of substitute products. Second, it discussed the coalescence of the old patterns of economic and legal thought. Third, it discussed the economic concepts of monopoly whose application is proposed for the future and their contrast with the existing legal tests of monopoly.
THE PRESENT ECONOMIC AND LEGAL VIEWS OF MONOPOLY AND COMPETITION.
Recent economic discussion has focused attention upon differences of opinion which exist among economists themselves and between economists and the courts as to the type and degree of competition which public policy, as expressed in the Sherman Act, contemplates. Differences also appear in the significance certain economists and courts attach to potential competition and to presence in the market of alternative or substitute products.
a. Competition and monopoly in the economic sense.
Today economists regard “perfect competition” and “pure monopoly” only as theoretical ideals of the opposite boundaries of possible market sitúat
*49
ions.
1
While economists have not crystallized their terms, in a semantic sense, they
recognize
between the two extremes of perfect competition and pure monopoly there are “pure competition”, “imperfect competition”, “oligopoly”, and “monopolistic
competition”
2
We start, Clark tells us, “with recognition that all practicable forms of competition are ‘imperfect’, and that the ‘perfect competition’ of economic theory is academic.”
3
Pure competition, sometimes defined as a less perfect form of competition than perfect competition, has been said by Mason to be that state of the market wherein “no buyer or seller could, by his own action, influence the price of the goods to be bought and sold.”
4
Mason views the concept of “pure competition of the economic theorists” as “divorced from time and space and independent of technological and other considerations.”
5
Imperfect competition in economic parlance is a term which includes all market situations falling between pure competition and pure monopoly, including what is known as oligopoly and monopolistic competition.
6
Monopolistic competition is now recognized as embracing those situations where either a few or many sellers trade in differentiated products, whereas “oligopoly” is regarded as consisting of those situations where a few sellers sell only a standardized product.
7
There is much debate among economists with respect to the significance which should be attached to market behavior in industries which are oligopolistic.
8
While some economists take the view* oligopolistic competition or oligopolies controvert the spirit of the antitrust laws, others contend oligopolies are able to pass along the benefits of efficiency of size to the consumer and are not socially disadvantageous.
9
Some admit in oligopolistic industries a considerably higher degree of competition than that which exists would be “workable” or effective.
10
*50
In attempting to evolve an economic approach to the concepts of monopoly and competition, some economists have proposed a theory of “Workable competition.”
11
This theory has, as yet, received no precise definition.
12
Rather it is an approach by which some economists propose to determine, in any given industry, whether the industry is competitive or monopolistic, and what degree of competition is obtainable by a practical policy without substantial loss of efficiency.
13
Monopoly, then, in economics, is not the simple test of perfect monopoly. In between the theoretical economic concepts of perfect competition and perfect monopoly lie various forms of imperfect competition which possess varying degrees and characteristics of monopoly. Pure monopoly which stands at the other extreme in economic thought from pure competition, has been defined by Stocking and Watkins as follows:
14
“Pure monopoly means a single seller of a product for which no substitute is available. But, like perfect competition, such a monopoly is a theoretical ideal.”
While some economists stress what they believe to be the efficiencies of oligopoly, others believe while a competitive structure may have imperfections, it is nevertheless the greater spur to progress and benefits to society. Corwin Edwards states:
15
“But although the maintenance of competition will not guarantee that the economy will work well, impairment of competition by monopolistic restrictions, public or private, increases the chance that it will work badly. Although the imperfections of the competitive process are too great to make economic adjustments quick, neat, and exact, the forces of competition tend to reduce many substantial economic maladjustments.”
Stocking and Watkins state:
16
“To maximize his earnings a monopolist must so regulate the inflow of new capital as not to impair the value of the old, whether it is a question of new processes or of new products that will compete with old. Where a monopolist can realize profits from a new product only by accepting smaller revenues from an old, he will be reluctant to introduce the new. Unless he can expect a monopoly return from the new that more than offset the losses of monopoly revenue from the old, he will not put the new product on the market. A monopolist restricts not only output but new investment as well. In this way monopoly tends to block innovation and change, to retard technological progress and to deprive society of its benefits.”
b. The competition intended by the Sherman Act.
Plaintiff shows the Sherman Act does not define the degree of competition which its policy contemplates, nor label it as either “perfect”, “pure”, “monopolistic”, or “atomistic”. The purpose of Congress in passing the Sherman Act was to preserve our system of free trade and competitive economy in order to protect the public from the evils thought to flow from undue restraints and monopolies. The object of Congress was “to secure competition and
*51
preclude combinations which tend to defeat it.” International Harvester Co. of America v. State of Missouri, 234 U.S. 199, 209 , 34 S.Ct. 859, 862 , 58 L.Ed. 1276 . The purpose of the statute was “to prohibit monopolies, contracts and combinations which probably would unduly interfere with the free exercise of their rights by those engaged, or who wish to engage, in trade and commerce —in a word to preserve the right of freedom to trade.” United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300, 307 , 39 S.Ct. 465, 468 , 63 L.Ed. 992 .
As Chief Justice White remarked in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 56 , 31 S.Ct. 502, 514 , 55 L.Ed. 619 , both at common law and under the Sherman Act, “practical common sense caused attention to be concentrated not upon the theoretically correct name to be given to the condition or acts which gave rise to a harmful result, but to the result itself and to the remedying of the evils which it produced.”
c. The economic view of the effect of potential competition upon monopoly.
Freedom of entry of new firms into a given industry has been suggested by some economists as the distinguishing feature between competitive and monopolistic industries. As pointed out by Stocking and Watkins:
17
“Economists who believe it impracticable to change greatly the structure of American industry count on potential competition and the competition of substitute products to make the existing structure of industry workably competitive by curbing monopoly power over the long run.”
Under this approach the continuation of monopoly is condoned so long as there is sufficient likelihood potential competition will act as a brake upon the monopolist’s use of its power, and regardless of the effect which the monopoly may have upon actual competitors.
Edwards views potential competition as a curb upon monopoly power “so long as entry is easy.”
18
Clark, who thinks industries having large scale production may be competitively workable, ascribes lesser effect to the power of potential competition. He says neither potential competition nor the presence of substitutes “is a perfect check; but both together may come near it under favorable conditions.”
19
Lewis represents another view when he states:
20
“The key to the effectiveness of competition is to be found in its power systematically and predictably to compel economic decisions, and I do not believe that any such power or force characterizes the competition present in industries composed of, or dominated by either a single firm or a few large firms. * * * To speak of potential competition as a compelling regulatory force in this situation is to be blind to the strength of the factors that retard and will continue to retard the drive of potential competition to become actual competition.”
Plaintiff argues potential competition does not serve as adequate legal test of the existence of monopoly, although the ability of new firms to enter an industry may give some indication of the strength of the barriers erected by the monopolist. One eminent legal writer, Milton Handler, pointed out some time ago that a combination may be held unlawful even though it has imposed no restraints upon new competition. Handler stated:
21
“Many economists who have disagreed with the major purpose of the anti-trust laws have felt that the public is adequately safeguarded if potential competition remains free and unfettered at all times. This is not the premise on which
*52
the Sherman Law is based. The instrument of control under this statute is both actual and potential competition.”
d. The economic view of the effect of substitute products upon monopoly.
Economists differ on the question of what significance should be attached to the presence in the market of products which are substitutes or alternatives for the product said to be monopolized.
In an address before the New York State Bar Association in 1950, Professor Meriam decried the action of Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 2 Cir., 148 F.2d 416 , both in restricting his consideration of the product involved to virgin aluminum ingot and ruling out secondary aluminum which competes with virgin, and in paying “no attention to the very significant business fact that aluminum competes with other light metals of different chemical composition.”
22
Other economists point out there are few commodities for which no substitutes are available.
23
The “monopolistic competition” school of thought is based upon the premise differentiation in products confers some degree of monopoly power. Wallace, in expressing his understanding of that school of thought, states:
24
“The theory of monopolistic competition emphasizes the significance of variation or differentiation of products. Successful differentiation confers some monopoly power by attracting a clientele which has some preference for the article of a particular seller.”
Chamberlin, a pioneer of the monopolistic competition school states:
25
“A monopoly of ‘Lucky Strikes’ does not constitute a monopoly of cigarettes, for there is no degree of control whatever over substitute brands. But if, in order to possess a perfect monopoly, control must extend to substitutes, the only perfect monopoly conceivable would be one embracing the supply of everything, since all things are more or less imperfect substitutes for each other. * •» * The term ‘monopoly’ is meaningless without reference to the thing monopolized. A monopoly of diamonds is not a monopoly of precious stones, nor, to go still further, of jewelry. Differentiation implies gradations, and it is compatible with perfect monopoly of one product that control stop short of some more general class of which this product is a part, and within which there is competition.”
After pointing out this idea was no departure from accepted doctrine, and citing as his authority both Taussig and Ely,
26
Chamberlin writes (p. 67):
“Of course, prices might be higher yet if, instead of a monopoly of each different brand, there existed a monopoly of the entire class of product. The more substitutes controlled by any one seller, the higher he can put his price. But that is another matter. As long as the substitutes are to any degree imperfect, he still has a monopoly of his own product and control over its price within the limits imposed upon any monopolist — those of the demand.”
*53
Clearly, there are different schools thought in economic circles with respect to the effect upon monopoly of the presence of substitute products. of
In general, plaintiff charges defendant maintains a monopoly position in the production and sale of cellophane and bands. It is charged defendant unlawfully acquired and maintains a monopoly position in the field of cellophane and bands — that defendant’s predatory practices in the markets for these products ■demonstrate an intent to monopolize and the exercise of monopoly power. The unlawful acquisition is traced, in the beginning, to defendant’s foreign relations with European companies, which resulted in a cartel which divided world markets. There is the charge of abuse of patents; exclusionary and oppressive acts and practices; and restraint of trade in distribution of the products in connection with both direct and indirect sales.
PART I — CELLOPHANE.
Certain issues of fact and law must ■control the decision in this case. When these controlling issues are isolated, it will be apparent there are fatal deficiencies in the Government’s proof, and the record fails to establish those facts which are essential to support the charges in the complaint.
The history of duPont’s cellophane business is a record of competitive .achievement. DuPont was the first American company to manufacture this new wrapping material. To pioneer the cellophane business required foresight, and a willingness to take risks. DuPont had little technical experience in this line of ■chemistry. The product had not been proven as a packaging material. It had had little acceptance in this country.
DuPont entered the business in the ■only manner that was practicable. It ac■quired the commercial process from the French. This process was obtained on the best terms duPont could negotiate. The two groups, American and French, had already been successful partners in rayon. No desire to limit competition was involved, for neither partner to the venture was engaged in business in competition with the other, and there is no indication anyone was interested.
DuPont saw the chance for profit and utility for cellophane if it could be introduced into the mass production packaging markets of the United States. It decided to bring a new competing material into the flexible packaging market, an established field of competitive business activity.
Cellophane was not at first acceptable in the trades to which it was offered. Manufacturing techniques were crude; quality unsatisfactory, and costs made price of cellophone prohibitive for many uses. There were distribution and merchandising problems to be met. Only by effective competition could duPont hope to gain recognition for its product in markets where other materials were entrenched. The business had to be built up by creative research.
DuPont’s technological achievements were of high order. Through research it improved manufacturing efficiency, reduced costs, improved quality, developed new types of materials and lowered prices to obtain acceptance for its product, all in the face of competition. Research results were continuously put to use in its plants.
The product obtained from the French did not meet the needs of the American market. DuPont invented a new product, moistureproof cellophane, which proved to be the product upon which the cellophane business has been built. It obtained a product patent under which all its moistureproof cellophane was produced during the period of the monopoly charged in the complaint. It then exploited that patent, well within the purposes and intentions of the patent grant. Its production expanded; it made many types of moistureproof cellophane; it gave increasing service to its customers; it neither curtailed its initiative nor restricted the capital which it
*54
was willing to devote to the enterprise. DuPont achieved through business method an increasing success in its competition with other packaging materials.
As cellophane got recognition in the trade, others entered various phases of the business as converters, users, suppliers of raw materials, manufacturers of equipment, and the like. Cellophane creates competition. Throughout the flexible packaging markets this competition is felt. It stimulates efforts of other producers to manufacture more efficiently. It stimulates research. The consumption of flexible packaging materials including cellophane has grown at a rapid rate. Within these markets the competition is intense. New producers have entered. No one material or one supplier controls — certainly not duPont, which has neither the power to raise prices nor to exclude competitors.
After reviewing the development of this business, plaintiff has been unable to bring a single person who says he was injured or who claims to have been denied an opportunity to participate. Prices have consistently been lowered and reflect competitive pressures. Production has expanded. Benefits from research have been passed on to consumers. DuPont has not conducted its cellophane business in a restrictive way. There are no artificial controls which it can exercise in the markets where its product is sold.
A. DuPONT’S POSITION DOES NOT VIOLATE § 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.
The charge here is duPont monopolizes cellophane. The charge involves two questions: 1. does duPont possess monopoly powers; and 2., if so has it achieved such powers by “monopolizing” within the meaning of the Act and under United States v. Aluminum Company of America, 2 Cir., 148 F.2d 416, 429 . Unless the first is decided against defendant, the second is not reached. First, then, to the question of existence of monopoly power.
1. DuPONT DOES NOT HAVE MONOPOLY POWER.
a. Plaintiff must establish duPont has sufficient power arbitrarily to raise prices or to exclude competitors.
Ultimate determination of issues raised by a charge § 2 has been violated, involves application of established principles. The tests are clear. They have been laid down in numerous cases. The issues in this litigation are fact issues, not law issues. When facts are analyzed! in the light of established tests* result is clear.
The voluminous record in this case requires the distillation of a great mass of facts which are basic to a decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
I. Description of Defendant duPont.
(Findings 1-6)
1. E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co. (hereafter called “duPont”) is a Delaware corporation. It manufactures chemical products, including many types of plain and moistureproof cellophane.
27
Prior to 1936, duPont engaged in the manufacture of these products through subsidiary companies: From 1923 to 1929, through duPont Cellophane Company in which duPont had 52% interest, and from 1929 to 1936, through duPont Cellophane Company, Inc., in which duPont had a 100% interest.
28
2. Within the duPont organization responsibility for the manufacture and sale of cellophane and bands rests with the Film Department which makes and sells other products, such as cellulose acetate film, polyethylene film, cellulose sponges, and cellulose bands.
29
From
*55
1936 until formation of the Film Department in April 1950, cellophane was handled with other products by the Cellophane Division of the Company’s Rayon Department.
30
The Cel-O-Seal section of the division handled caps and bands.
31
8. DuPont built cellophane manufacturing plants and commenced operations in them:
Plant and Location Operation Started
Buffalo #1 (N.Y.) April, 1924
Old Hickory #1 (Tenn.) October, 1929
Old Hickory #2 (Tenn.) August, 1930
Spruance #1 (Richmond, Va.) November, 1930
Buffalo #2 (N.Y.) February, 1932
Spruance #2 (Richmond, Va.) May, 1937
Clinton #1 (Iowa) March, 1941
Clinton #2 (Iowa) February,
1947
32
All plants are operating today except plant known as Buffalo #1 which was ■closed in 1942 and thereafter converted to manufacture of rayon for tire cord at the request of the United States to meet urgent production problems during the war.
33
4. DuPont sells types of cellophane designed to serve specific packaging needs.
34
In 1949, duPont sold 108 varieties of cellophane.
35
5. In 1950, duPont produced 202,000,-000 lbs. of cellophane
36
and its sales in that year totalled $99,181,192 of which $89,850,416 was moistureproof cellophane.
37
6. DuPont sells cellophane in interstate trade.
38
Cellophane is sold in foreign commerce.
39
II. Description of Cellophane.
(Findings 7-12)
7. Plain cellophane is a thin flexible non-fibrous film of regenerated cellulose containing glycerol as a softener. It has little resistance to the passage of moisture vapor and is used for wrapping products as to which the gain of moisture is not important.
40
Moistureproof cellophane is a different product. It is a thin transparent flexible non-fibrous film of regenerated cellulose containing a softener, one of which is glycerol, combined with a moistureproofing composition. Moistureproof cellophane is used for packaging foodstuffs; gain or loss of moisture is important.
41
Plain cellophane is manufactured in various thicknesses, colors, as well as transparent form.
42
Types of moisture-proof cellophane differ in their resistance to moisture vapor, ability to be sealed by heat and anchoring of the coating to the base film.
43
Specific types of moistureproof cellophane were developed to meet' the packaging requirements of specific products.
44
*56
8. In commercial practice moisture-proof cellophane is 100 times as impervious to the transmission of moisture vapor as plain cellophane
45
9. Plain cellophane is manufactured by extruding viscose made to specifications through a narrow slot in a hopper into a chemical bath where it coagulates in the form of a thin sheet; this sheet is run through a succession of purifying baths and while wet is immersed in a water solution of glycerol, some of which is absorbed; excess moisture is then removed from the surface of the film and the material is dried to a predetermined moisture content.
46
Moistureproof cellophane is manufactured by combining with a base thin transparent film of regenerated cellulose, containing a softener, one of which is glycerol, a moistureproofing coating composition, which may comprise waxes, resins, nitrocellulose or other film forming materials and plasticizers.
47
The manufacturing processes are chemical in nature and require for successful commercial operation a degree of technical knowledge and controls. The mechanical aspects of the operations are intricate.
48
10. Until the invention and development of moistureproof film, cellophane sales were relatively unimportant.
49
Production of moistureproof cellophane, which began in 1927, by 1930 had exceeded production of plain cellophane.
50
Subsequent growth of cellophane sales has been due to moisture-proof cellophane.
51
In 1936, United States production of plain cellophane amounted to 24,650,000 lbs. and by 1947 had increased to only 25,780,000 lbs. During the same period, United States production of moistureproof cellophane increased from 50,941,000 lbs. to 148,-769,000 lbs.
52
11. After preparation of viscose solution, cellophane is extruded through a casting machine. These machines are 200 feet long and are operated by duPont at speeds up to 120 meters per minute, carrying a film 1/1,000th of an inch thick (300 gauge) from a semi-coagulated to a coagulated condition with an allowable variation in gauge of only 1/10,000th of an inch.
53
DuPont’s moistureproof cellophane goes through the further stage of a six story coating tower in which the film running at a speed of 200 meters per minute has applied to it on each side a coating of 1/100,000th of an inch thick, with an allowable tolerance in coating thickness of approximately 1/1,000,000th of an inch.
54
12. Plain and moistureproof cellophane are separate products from cellulose caps and and bands which are made by separate processes, used for different purposes and sold to a different trade.
55
III. DuPont’s Entry Into the Cellophane Business and Organization of duPont Cellophane Company.
(Findings 13-36)
13. DuPont was the first company to manufacture plain cellophane in the United States,
56
and the first to manufacture moistureproof cellophane anywhere in the world.
57
*57
14. La Cellophane, Societe Anonyme, referred to as “La Cellophane”, is a French corporation with principal place ■of business at Paris, France.
58
Prior to 1941 it had association with an organization known as Comptoir des Textiles Artificiéis, referred to as “Comptoir”, a French organization with interests in rayon.
59
La Cellophane produces cellophane in France.
60
It was the first company to manufacture plain cellophane •on a commercial basis, and was engaged in this business in France in 1917.
61
15. Jacques Brandenberger of France invented the process and machinery for the manufacture of plain cellophane about 1912. He obtain patents both in Europe and United States on his inventions. Brandenberger’s processes and patents were transferred to La Cellophane on its formation, at which time Brandenberger joined La Cellophane. The United States patents were assigned to duPont Cellophane Company in 1923. Some of these were subsequently used in duPont Cellophane Company’s operations.
62
16. Prior to duPont’s decision to manufacture plain cellophane, duPont had been associated with Comptoir in the manufacturing of viscose rayon in the United States through a jointly owned company called duPont Fibersilk Company (later, duPont Rayon Company). This association had been profitable. The processes and technical information, including viscose chemistry, engineering and other details of manufacture of rayon, had been acquired from the Comptoir after fruitless experimentation by duPont to develop an artificial fiber.
63
17. DuPont management decided to invest money in cellophane manufacture as part of a policy determined after World War I to diversify into a broad line of chemical products.
64
In entering the cellophane business, duPont had no intention to commit any act violative of the Sherman Act.
65
18. About 1923, duPont became interested in cellophane when it learned through the Comptoir, La Cellophane had developed and was operating a commercial process for the manufacture of plain cellophane. DuPont conducted negotiations with the French interests for the American rights to this process, which culminated in the formation of duPont Cellophane Company and execution of certain technical agreements.
66
No evidence exists any other concern in the United States was interested in securing the French process at this time.
19. The French would not disclose any aspect of their cellophane process to duPont unless duPont would agree to refrain from manufacturing cellophane for five years in the event it determined after disclosure not to take a license.
67
20. The French were not willing to make their process available to duPont unless duPont agreed the French could participate in the profits of United States manufacture
68
and unless duPont was willing to confine to North and Central America its manufacture and sale of cellophane made by the French process.
69
DuPont sought to obtain ex-
*58
elusive right to La Cellophane’s patents and processes and responsibility for the manufacturing operations.
70
21. By contract dated June 9, 1923, duPont and the French agreed to form duPont Cellophane Company to manufacture cellophane in the United States. Each party agreed it would not prior to December 31, 1935 except by duPont Cellophane Company become interested in any other business in North or Central America engaged in the manufacture of cellophane.
71
22. By agreement of June 9, 1923, duPont Cellophane Company was organized to manufacture cellophane in the United States. DuPont contributed $866,666.67 and received 52% of the voting stock. La Cellophane contributed its patents, processes, technical assistance, and $133,333.33, for all of which it received 48% of the voting stock.
72
23. The contribution of La Cellophane to duPont Cellophane Company in exchange for 48% of its voting stock was neither cash nor patents but its secret process and technical assistance.
73
24. On December 26, 1923, an agreement was executed between duPont Cellophane Company and La Cellophane by which La Cellophane licensed duPont Cellophane Company exclusively under its United States cellophane patents, and granted duPont Cellophane Company the exclusive right to make and sell in North and Central America under La Cellophane’s secret processes for cellophane manufacture. DuPont Cellophane Company granted to La Cellophane exclusive rights for the rest of the world under any cellophane patents or processes duPont Cellophane Company might develop.
74
25. There was no agreement between La Cellophane and duPont beyond the written agreements of June 9, 1923 and December 26, 1923.
75
26. La Cellophane had four representatives on the Board of eleven (later nine) Directors of duPont Cellophane Company.
76
La Cellophane had a minority interest and veto power over major expenditures, over obligations of the company which would alienate, mortgage or diminish the corporate assets, and over changes in the number of Directors. Similar veto powers were held by the minority over changes in the charter and by-laws.
77
27. The representatives of La Cellophane on the Board of duPont Cellophane Company attended Directors’ meetings and participated in the functions of the Board.
78
The French were most actively represented by a New York lawyer, Benjamin Paskus, and two American businessmen, Messrs. Henry Blum and Albert Blum.
79
28. In 1929 duPont purchased the shares of the French in duPont Cellophane Company, and reorganized it as du Pont Cellophane Company, Inc. In exchange for the French shareholding in the duPont Rayon and Cellophane Companies the French interests received duPont Company stock with a market value at that time of nearly $90,000,000. French interests continued their membership on the Board of duPont Cellophane Company, Inc., maintained their previous degrees of participation in the management of the affairs of the company, and technical cooperation con
*59
tinued between duPont Cellophane Company, Inc. and La Cellophane.
80
29. At the time duPont decided to enter the cellophane business it had limited technical resources useful in such business, and had no knowledge as to how to make cellophane or of the chemistry of the product.
81
It was not staffed to develop the necessary chemical and engineering techniques at a cost which would have been reasonable.
82
This information was essential to commercial manufacture of plain cellophane.
83
30. Although duPont believed it was a business risk to undertake manufacture of cellophane in the United States, success of the venture was not assured.
84
The buildings for the initial casting machines at Buffalo were designed to permit conversion to use in rayon manufacture in the event the cellophane venture failed.
85
31. In France plain cellophane was sold in sheet form for hand application in the packing of luxury items, such as perfume bottles and for decorative uses. It was sold in small volume at high prices.
86
DuPont felt while the business risks were substantial, it stood a chance ■of promoting cellophane in the United States by improving its quality and manufacturing processes so it could be sold for mass packaging uses at lower cost in competition with other flexible packaging materials already established in the American market.
87
32. Evidence shows duPont could not have developed a successful process for •cellophane manufacture in less than five to eight years and then only at very substantial cost.
88
DuPont has continued to use La Cellophane’s basic process,
89
and evidence shows the only other process commercially developed for continuous manufacture, Wolff’s casting on a wheel, was inferior in cost of manufacture and quality of product.
90
'33. Technical information which La Cellophane granted duPont Cellophane Company represented the entire knowledge gained by La Cellophane as the result of years of research in developing the process. It included designs for all machinery including the hopper and all casting machine apparatus, together with information as to chemical compositions and controls from the initial step in the formulation of the viscose solution to the ultimate product. The French disclosed through plant inspection, manuals and training of personnel both in France and in the United States all phases of their own proven production line know-how. French technicians designed the initial duPone Cellophane plant, manufactured some of the machinery in France, and supervised the operations and training of essential personnel.
91
34. Communication of the process to duPont by La Cellophane was in confidence. The process for cellophane manufacture had been kept in secrecy by the French prior to its communication to duPont by a system of fences, plant guards, passes and an effort on the part of management to maintain secrecy. Following the communication of the process to duPont Cellophane Company, both it and
*60
La Cellophane used similar means to maintain secrecy of the process and the interior of the plants.
92
35. Some information as to La Cellophane’s process became available through the patent literature,
93
but many key facts were not disclosed at any time prior to World War II and all phases of the process were kept secret by duPont until that time.
94
36. DuPont still employs the fundamentals of the secret process received from La Cellophane for continuous casting of an endless sheet of regenerated cellulose.
95
IV. The “Market Setting” in Which Cellophane is Sold.
(Findings 37-79)
37. The relevant market for determining the extent of duPont’s market control is the market for flexible packaging materials (judicial notice after examination and observation).
38. Both plain and moistureproof cellophane are packaging materials.
96
Only 6 percent of duPont’s cellophane production is sold or used for non-packaging purposes.
97
39. When cellophane was first made by duPont, wax paper, glassine, and sulphite paper were the flexible packaging materials in use. These products were established in the trade and accepted.
98
They remain today dominant materials sold for the end uses where cellophane is also employed by some packagers.
99
40. Since 1923 new types of flexible materials have been developed for packaging. These include, among others, rubber hydrochloride film,
100
moisture-proof cellophane,
101
polyethylene coated paper,
102
heat sealing glassine,
103
and polyethylene film.
104
41. From the beginning of duPont’s cellophane duPont has been aware of competition of other flexible packaging materials, particularly waxed paper and glassine, and has directed its price and sales policies toward selling successfully against these materials. This awareness is reflected from 1923 to the filing of this suit in correspondence and reports within the duPont organization.
105
42. Since 1923 there has been a growth in the use of flexible packaging materials; measured in millions of square yards, total United States production and imports of the principal flexible packaging materials has grown from approximately 4,170,000 in 1925 to 14,-720,000 in 1949.
106
This has resulted from improvements in all the materials themselves; the rapid development of self-service distribution with its emphasis upon retail packaging units, higher standards of living and increased consumption, emphasis upon protective and other health aspects of packaging, the development of new merchandising techniques and the increased utility of the
*61
materials themselves.
107
All principal flexible packaging materials have shared in this development and much of the growth of duPont’s cellophane business is due to the factors mentioned.
108
43. There is tremendous increase in packaging since the end of World War II in both transparent and non-transparent materials. Most of this increase has been in consumer-size packages.
109
44. DuPont employs sixty men in the selling of cellophane.
110
These men are trained to have technical familiarity with packaging design, with packaging machinery, including printing and bag making machines, with physical and chemical properties of the various types of cellophane, and with the distribution, costs, sales promotion and other business problems of concerns that are direct users of cellophane and of concerns that process it for resale.
111
45. DuPont sells about 55% of its cellophane direct through its own salesmen to users who package products of their own manufacture for retail distribution such as bakers, food chains, candy manufacturers, meat packers, cereal manufacturers, and tobacco companies.
112
This cellophane is sold without printing or other processing in roll or sheet form in various sizes to suit the customer’s needs.
113
Most customers run cellophane through packaging machines to wrap their products.
114
46. DuPont sells cellophane to converters who print cellophane or process it into packaging units such as bags or special wraps and in turn sell in a form for use as a primary part of a package to concerns which package their produCts.
115
About 35% to 40% of duPont cellophane is sold in this manner.
116
The same customer often buys unprinted cellophane from duPont for certain purposes and buys converted cellophane from converters for other or the same purposes.
117
DuPont sells cellophane in quantities to jobbers and to fabricators.
118
The latter use cellophane in the manufacture of non-packaging items such as straws, pressure-sensitive cellulose tape, Christmas ornaments and ribbon.
119
47. Most companies engaged in converting cellophane into bags or printed packaging material, including all of the principal converters of duPont cellophane also convert other flexible packaging materials, such as glassine, other papers, Pliofilm, polyethylene, Saran, and others.
120
The products of such a converter made of flexible packaging materials other than cellophane are sold by the same salesmen who sell the converter’s products made of cellophane, to customers who are potential users of converted cellophane as well.
121
*62
48. Most converters who handle duPont cellophane also handle other flexible packaging materials at the same time for sale for the same end uses.
122
49. Converters produce wrappers for nearly every type of customer.
123
Converters hold themselves out to the public through advertising in trade journals, as ready to serve any type of customer with any type of flexible packaging material or combination.
124
50. Concerns which purchase cellophane from duPont, or converted duPont cellophane from converters, will purchase other packaging materials (such as glassine, foil, etc.) from manufacturers of such materials and from converters of them.
125
51. In addition to duPont two companies, American Viscose Corporation and Olin Industries, Inc., also manufacture and sell cellophane throughout the United States and in foreign commerce
126
52. Sylvania Industrial Corporation was a Virginia corporation
127
organized in 1929 and began production of cellophane at a plant in Fredericksburg, Virginia in 1930.
128
In 1946 it was acquired by American Viscose Company, a Delaware corporation, which is the largest producer of viscose and of viscose rayon in the United States,
129
with assets in 1949 in excess of $222,000,-000.
130
The term “Sylvania” is used with reference to events since that acquisition as meaning the Sylvania Division of the American Viscose Company, and prior thereto to mean Sylvania Industrial Corporation.
53. Olin Industries, Inc., referred to as “Olin”, is a Delaware corporation having a place of business at East Alton, Illinois.
131
Ecusta Paper Corporation is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at Pisgah Forest, North Carolina.
132
Ecusta is owned and controlled by Olin and carries on the entire cellophane business of Olin.
133
Ecusta began production of cellophane in June 1951 at its plant in Pisgah Forest, North Carolina.
134
54. Manufacturers of flexible packaging materials other than cellophane promote their products by many of the means employed by duPont to promote cellophane.
135
55. Manufacturers of flexible packaging materials hold themselves out to the trade, through advertising as able to satisfy the packaging requirements of
*63
the principal customer trades. This advertising material appears in the principal packaging periodicals such as
Modem Packaging, Package Parade,
and the
Modem Packaging Encyclopedia
and in trade journals representing various end uses, such as
Bakers Weekly, The Confectioner's Journal, Food Industries National Provisioner,
etc. These advertising appeals constitute claims each material, including cellophane, has the desirable degree of protective property (against moisture, dirt, rough handling, etc.), consumer appeal and reasonable price to act as an economical merchandising medium and protective package for food and other products.
136
56. For any specific end use there is available a variety of flexible packaging materials that will satisfy the requirements of packaging a product. A number of materials can provide the combination of properties. It is solved by choosing combination of qualities and price which is considered most profitable to the purchasing concern at the time of the particular purchase. Persons who use cellophane for packaging a product regard cellophane as only one of several possible packages and often change to others on short notice
137
57. A customer for packaging materials is in the market for additional packaging material within a few weeks. All such customers are open to change from one packaging material to another at any time.
138
58. Cellophane is not a unique flexible packaging material in any functional or economic sense. In terms of uses for which cellophane is sold, and the qualities it brings to each use as a wrapping material, cellophane is interchangeable and
in fact
continually interchanged with many flexible packaging materials
139
59. The accompanying Table
140
compares, descriptively, physical properties of cellophane and other flexible packaging materials:
*64
*65
60. Users and converters of these flexible packaging materials purchase materials principally on the basis of two criteria: (a) the composite of physical properties of a particular material, and (b) the price, or cost of using, a particular material. Neither price alone nor a single quality governs selection
141
61. Different purchasers of flexible packaging materials make different appraisals of the composite of properties and the importance of cost, and make widely varied selections of materials.
142
62. Other flexible packaging materials are sold to the same customers who buy cellophane from duPont and for the same uses.
143
These materials include without limitation:
Aluminum foil
is a thin aluminum sheet. The gauges used for packaging are from .0015 to .00035 inches. The foil is used as a packaging medium. It is laminated to glassine, paper or tissue, to other films, or to cellophane. It is opaque, brilliant of surface, highly moistureproof, and readily takes a semi-permanent set, known as “dead folding”. It can be printed and like cellophane can be sealed by heat when coated.
144
Cellulose acetate
is a film made by the flowing of a solvent solution of cellulose acetate onto a large diameter, slow moving casting wheel, or metal belt. The solvent evaporates, and the dry film is stripped from the wheel or belt as it turns. The film can be made by an extrusion process. It is waterproof. It can be printed, and sealed by heat, if coated. It has a high surface gloss.
145
Cry-O-Rap
is the trade name of a film made from a modified polyvinylidene chloride resin. Its chief characteristics are chemical inertness, transparency, durability, and flexibility at low temperatures. It can be shrunk around irregularly shaped objects by application of moderate heat.
146
Greaseproof paper
is made by beating wood pulp in a vat filled with water until the fibers become saturated and gelatinous in texture. Resulting product is translucent and resistent to oil and grease.
147
Glassine
is produced by finishing greaseproof paper between highly polished metal rollers under heat and at pressure. This process develops the transparency and surface gloss which are characteristic of glassine. It is greaseproof, and can be sealed by heat, if coated. It is made moistureproof by coating and with appropriate lacquers or waxes and may be printed.
Glassine and waxed paper are the two materials which have been sold in the largest quantities in direct competition with cellophane for the longest period of time.
148
Pliofilm
is a trade name of a film produced by flowing a solvent solution of rubber hydrochloride onto a moving web. The web passes through a heated chamber, which evaporates the solvent and leaves a transparent film. Pliofilm is
*66
tough, can be stretched to 5 or 6 times its original dimensions.. It is moisture-proof, and is capable of weldtype heat sealing. Heavier gauges are cloudy. It can be shrunk around an object by application of moderate heat, and can be printed.
149
Polyethylene
film is made from a solution formed from high-pressure polymerization of ethylene gas. This solution can be cast or extruded to produce the film. Principal characteristics of the film are chemical inertness, flexibility at low temperatures, and good inherent moistureproofness. Polyethylene film is transparent, but slightly hazy.
150
Saran
is the trade name of a film made from polyvinylidene chloride.. It is characterized by strength, toughness, flexibility, transparency, and chemical inertness. It has'the highest moistureproofness of all the packaging materials.
151
Sulphite Paper
is high grade, machine-glazed paper used as wrapping, for the packaging of food and other merchandise. It is the usual basis of wrappers (e. g. paper component of cigarette pack), waxing stock (for waxed paper) and other uses where moderate strength, flexibility and good coating and printing surface is required.
152
Vegetable Parchment
is made by passing unsized raw paper through a sulphuric acid bath, and drying on regular paper machine dryers. This “parehmentizing” covers the paper with a thin layer of gelatinous cellulose which fills the interstices of the fibres and cements them into a cohesive mass. Vegetable parchment is highly greaseproof, has wet strength, and is slightly translucent.
153
Waxed Paper
is made by applying melted wax to sulphite or sulphate paper.Waxed paper is made in various degrees of transparency, and is sealable by heat. Resins are added to the wax to enhance surface gloss, heat-sealing properties and low-temperature flexibility. In the printed forms, print is usually applied prior to waxing.
154
63. There are respects in which other flexible packaging materials are as satisfactory as cellophane:
Waxed Paper
— for
an instance.
Transparency is not necessarily desirable in a wrap,
155
although waxed papers can be made with a degree of transparency.
156
Waxed paper wraps have eye appeal arrived at through gloss, opacity, and colored printing.
157
. Waxed paper is not difficult to heat-seal, and is as good as cellophane, in this respect.
158
Waxed paper runs on high speed machines as well as cellophane.
159
Better printing effects are available with waxed paper than with cellophane.
160
Waxed paper affords as good moisture protection as cellophane.
161
*67
Moistureproof coating of moisture-proof cellophane will separate more readily in contact with fats and oils than waxed paper coatings.
162
Waxed paper is cheaper than cellophane.
163
Waxed paper is superior to cellophane in resistance to rancidity-inducing ultraviolet rays.
164
Waxed paper is superior to cellophane in durability under rough handling," at low temperatures.
165
Printing is applied to waxing papers prior to coating.
166
Glassine.
Glassine is, in some types, about 90
%
transparent, so printing is legible through it.
167
Glassine affords low cost transparency.
168
Moisture protection afforded by waxed or lacquered glassine is as good as that of moistureproof cellophane.
169
Glassine has greater resistance to tearing and breakage than cellophane
170
Glassine runs on packaging machinery with ease equal to that of cellophane.
171
Glassine can be printed faster than cellophane, and can be run faster than moistureproof cellophane on bag machines.
172
Glassine has greater resistance than •cellophane to rancidity-inducing ultraviolet rays.
173
Glassine has dimensional stability superior to cellophane.
174
Glassine is more durable in cold weather than cellophane.
175
Printed glassine can be sold against cellophane on the basis of appearance.
176
Glassine may be more easily laminated than cellophane.
177
.
Glassine is cheaper than cellophane in some types, comparable in others.
178
Aluminum Foil.
Aluminum foil is most commonly used in .00035 gauge which is comparable to cellophane.
179
In .00035 gauge aluminum foil is cheaper than moistureproof cellophane in cents per 1,000'sq. in.
180
Aluminum foil after laminating' and coating is within competitive range of .the price of moistureproof cellophane.
181
Moisture resistance of coated aluminum foil, even in .00035 gauge, is comparable with moistureproof cellophane, and is one -of the selling points for aluminum foil.
182
Heat-sealing foil gives a heat-seal comr parable with cellophane.
183
Aluminum foil has dimensional stability in the presence of humidity changes, and offers protection against water
*68
absorption. Cellophane is susceptible to water . absorption and dimensional change.
184
Aluminum foil has a degree of eye appeal, and can be attractively printed
185
Foil has a dead-folding property which cellophane lacks, which enables foil to give more complete protection to the contents of a package.
186
Aluminum foil, being opaque, is superior to cellophane in resistance to rancidity-inducing ultraviolet rays.
187
Cellulose
Acetate.
188
• There is no evidence the water-insensitivity of CA is a disadvantage. This feature is the basis of CA’s superior shrink .resistance and dimensional stability.
189
,
CA is less susceptible than cellophane to softening by water, and is a superior wrap for fresh produce.
190
CA permits free passage of moisture and gases more readily than cellophane, and is a superior wrap for fresh produce, fruit, iced cakes and doughnuts, and pies.
191
CA is made in heat-sealing type, selling at the same price as ordinary CA film.
192
Improvements have been made in elimination of static electricity when running CA film on machines. Static eliminators can be obtained for as little cost as
15‡.
193
Largest producer of CA is attempting to reduce the price gap between CA and cellophane. This policy is intended to reduce a competitive disadvantage of CA and to stimulate sales.
194
CA is superior to cellophane in clarity, luster and eye appeal
195
CA is used on a variety of food and other products including: fresh produce, bacon, tomatoes, fresh meat, pies, rolls, iced cakes, laminations, window boxes. 40% of CA film made by its largest producer is sold for packaging food.
196
CA’s major competition is cellophane.
197
It is not more expensive to run CA on packaging machinery than cellophane.
198
Cry-O-Rap.
Cry-O-Rap can be shrunk around irregular objects, unlike cellophane, and for this reason is used to wrap frozen poultry.
199
Cry-O-Rap is superior to cellophane as a wrap for frozen poultry because of its durability at low temperatures.
200
Cry-O-Rap is superior to cellophane in its resistance to tearing, to water absorption, and in its dimensional stability.
201
*69
Pliofilm.
Pliofilm, although 5 or 10 points less transparent than cellophane, is not cloudy when stretched.
202
The odor of Pliofilm was a characteristic of the early years, and never a serious technical problem.
203
Pliofilm is superior to cellophane in moistureproofness, resistance to tearing and heat-sealing.
204
Static electricity can be inexpensively eliminated from machines using Pliofilm.
205
The heat-sealing range of Pliofilm is not a narrow one.
206
Pliofilm may be printed on the same presses that print cellophane.
207
Pliofilm is tough, tougher than cellophane.
208
Pliofilm is more flexible than cellophane at low temperatures
209
Pliofilm’s resistance to shrinkage and resistance to water absorption are greater than cellophane.
210
90% of Pliofilm production goes for packaging, most of this for food packaging. In this field it competes with cellophane.
211
It is not more expensive to run Pliofilm on packaging machinery than cellophane.
212
Polyethylene.
Problems in heat-sealing and machine running of Polyethylene have been solved; it is now handled' on packaging machines with no difficulty. Polyethylene has excellent heat-sealing properties. It is now printed by converters.
213
Polyethylene has only appeared commercially since World War II, and has a promising sales potential.
214
In resistance to tearing, resistance to water absorption, and dimensional stability, Polyethylene is superior to cellophane.
215
Polyethylene is more durable and flexible than cellophane, particularly at low temperatures.
216
Saran.
Saran is superior to cellophane in moisture protection, resistance to tearing, resistance to water absorption, and dimensional stability.
217
Saran can be run and heat sealed on the same model of the Hayssen machine that handles cellophane.
218
Electronic sealing can be used where heat-sealing Saran raises technical difficulties.
219
64. Fresh meat turned black in a few hours if wrapped in MSAT. MSAT 80 film was developed, with the coating applied only to one side of the film, as an answer to the technical problem posed by fresh meat. This film will hold the color of fresh meat over a period of several days, which is something none of the previous types would do.
220
*70
’65. Varieties of cellophane manufactured by duPont have different properties or degrees of the same properties. Varieties have more properties, and are .capable of more specific functions, in common with some types of glassine and other materials, than with other types of cellophane.
221
66. The principal'manufacturers of flexible packaging materials include established concerns with assets which are competent to compete for flexible packaging business. The following list. of companies indicates name, date of organization, and total assets in 1949 in thousands of dollars.
Name Date of Organization Total Assets in 1949 in Thousands of Dollars
Riegel Paper Corp................. 1873 $15,285
Rhinelander Paper Co.............. 1903 14,720
Kalamazoo Vegetable Parchment Co, 1909 29,269
Marathon Corp.................... 1909 61,888
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co......... 1898 ' ■ 424,126
Celanese Corporation of America ..'.. . 1918 254,886
Aluminum Corporation of America... ,1888 . 525,870
American. Viscose Corp............. 1910 222,396
222
6.7. Ten companies in the United States produce glassine and greaseproof papers. Their volume of output increased since 1941 and since 1946. Dernand exceeded their ability to supply during World War II, from early 1947 to mid-1948 and from mid-1950 to November 1951.
223
68. Some of the companies making glassine, waxed paper and other packaging papers are:
224
, .
Company Material
Riegel Paper Corporation Glassine and greaseproof, waxing paper, other specialty papers
Rhinelander Paper Company Glassine and greaseproof
Westfield River Paper Company, Inc. Glassine
Deerfield Glassine Company Glassine
Paterson Parchment Paper Company ■ Vegetable parchment and greaseproof
Kalamazoo Vegetable Parchment Company Vegetable parchment and greaseproof
Marathon Corporation Sulphite and sulphate paper and paperboard
Consolidated Water Power & Paper Company Sulphite, wrapping tissue and coated papers
Fraser Companies Ltd. (owns Fraser Paper Co.) Sulphite and groundwood specialty papers
Nicolet Paper Company (subsidiary of Milprint, Inc., a major cellophane converter) Glassine
225
*71
69. There are three domestic manufacturers of cellulose acetate film: Celanese Corporation of America, duPont, and Eastman Kodak Company, and two smaller producers.
226
Celanese produces more than all others combined.
227
DuPont manufactures less than 20% of the total domestic production of cellulose acetate packaging films.
228
70. Aluminum foil is manufactured in U. S. by Aluminum Company of America, Reynolds Metals Co., Johnson Aluminum & Metal Co., Cochrane Foil Co., Republic Foil Co., Stranahan Foil Co., Kaiser Chemical & Aluminum Co., Aluminum Foils Co., and Standard Rolling Mills.
229
71. There are 300 firms in the United States manufacturing polyethylene film,
230
including Visking Corporation, Plax Corporation, Fabricon Products, Inc., duPont, and the Harwid Company.
231
DuPont manufactures less than 10% of the polyethylene film made in the United States.
232
72. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company is the producer in the United States of rubber hydrochloride film, which Goodyear calls Pliofilm.
233
The Dow Chemical Company is" the domestic producer of Saran, and Dewey, and Almy Chemical Company is the producer of Cry-O-Rap.
234
73. All other flexible packaging materials are, like cellophane, sold direct to the packager by the manufacturer
235
and are sold indirectly through converters.
236
74. Cellophane and other flexible packaging materials are sold for packaging retail merchandise, particularly food products.
237
75. The converting business is competitive both as among converters and among alternative materials. Converters selling wraps to a certain trade compete with wraps of the same or
different
materials sold by other converters to the same trade, and business gained by one converter is denied to the rest. In addition, converters compete with each other in the development of new uses for packaging materials in trades where no packaging is used.
238
76. Elements of competition among converters include: price differentials, technical service to customer’s' production departments, merchandising' service to the customer’s sales departments, quality of printing or mánufacture of
*72
converted products, degree of protection afforded by the converted wrap to customer’s product, advertising, direct salesmanship brought to bear upon individual customers or potential customers, and degree of cooperation that can be obtained from the manufacture of the packaging materials used by any given converter.
239
77. About 4,000 converter salesmen are engaged in selling converted flexible packaging materials to customers in the food industry and other trades.
240
Most converter salesmen sell a full line of materials, but concentrate upon a single trade. Some salesmen are specialists in the baking industry, or the meat packing industry, but each salesman sells cellophane and other flexible packaging materials to his trade. Each type of wrap may be sold separately or in combination with others, according to the needs and desires of each customer at the time.
241
78. Some of the principal converters of flexible packaging materials are:
American Paper Goods Co.
Benj. C. Betner Co.
Dixie Waxpaper Co., Inc.
Dobeckmun Co.
Fabricon Products, Inc.
Forbes Lithograph Mfg. Co.
Kalamazoo Vegetable Parchment Co.
Marathon Corporation
Munson Bag Co.
Milprint, Inc.
Nashua Gummed & Coated Paper Co.
Oneida Paper Products, Inc.
Reynolds Metals Co.
Shellmar Products Corp.
Traver Corporation
Union Bag and Paper Corp.
U. S. Envelope Co.
Waxide Paper Co.
Western Waxed Paper Co.
242
None of these companies converts cellophane exclusively.
An analysis of the 1949 sales by these companies of concerted flexible packaging materials showed cellophane to be 19.3% of the total business of these companies. The other 80.7% of their sales comprised aluminum foil, glassine, Pliofilm, polyethylene, cellulose acetate, waxed paper, sulphite, vegetable parchment, a small amount of kraft paper and all combinations and laminations of these materials.
243
79. Converters sell two or more flexible packaging materials in combination to produce a particular wrap or package. Nineteen major representative converters produced the following combinations in 1949:
244
Cellophane and Combinations
Cello MT
Cello PT
Duplex Cello MT
Coated Cello, MT
Cello MT & Glassine, Window Type
Duplex Cello PT
Cello MT & Kraft, Window Type
Cello PT & Kraft, Window Type
Laminated Cello MT
Coated Laminated Cello MT
Duplex Cello MT & Glassine
Cello MT & Vellum, Paper Window Type
Laminated Cello MT to Foil
Laminated Cello MT to Kraft
Cello PT & Greaseproof, Window Type
Laminated Cello MT to Waxed Sulphite
*73
Laminated Cello MT to Opaque Glassine
Miscellaneous Cellophane Combinations
Foil and Combinations
(Except with Cellophane)
Foil
Laminated Foil to Tissue
Laminated Foil to Waxed Tissue
Laminated Foil to Glassine
Laminated Foil to Bond
Laminated Foil to Glassine to Coated Foil
Laminated Foil to Acetate
Laminated Coated Foil to Parchment
Laminated Coated Foil to Tissue
Laminated Foil to Kraft
Laminated Foil to Tissue to Tissue
Laminated Foil to Parchment
Laminated Foil to Acetate to Pliofilm
Miscellaneous Foil Combinations
Laminated Foil to Sulphite
Glassine and Combinations
(Except with Cellophane or Foil)
Glassine
Waxed Glassine
Laminated Glassine
Duplex Glassine & Kraft
Duplex Glassine & Bleached Kraft
Laminated Glassine to Kraft
Duplex Waxed Glassine
Coated Glassine
Duplex Laminated Glassine & Bleached Kraft
Duplex Glassine
Duplex Laminated Glassine & Kraft
Opaque Glassine
Waxed Laminated Glassine
Duplex Glassine & Sulphite
Laminated Glassine to Opaque Sulphite
Duplex Waxed Glassine & Sulphite
Triplex Glassine & Kraft & Kraft
Miscellaneous Glassine Combinations
Films and Combinations
(Except with Cellophane, Foil, Glassine or Other Papers)
Pliofilm
Polyethylene
Cellulose Acetate
Coated Pliofilm
Visten 10
Vinyl
Laminated Pliofilm
Miscellaneous Synthetic Films
Papers and Combinations
(Except with Cellophane, Foil or Glassine)
Waxed Bleached Sulphite
Waxed Opaque Sulphite
Waxed Kraft
Parchment
Sulphite
Kraft
Waxed Clear Transparent
Moldproofed Sulphite
Bleached Kraft
Kraft & Mesh, Window Type
Waxed Parchment
Waxed Twisting
Laminated Waxed Sulphite
Dry Waxed
Waxed Manila
Greaseproof
Duplex Kraft
Laminated Sulphite
Waxed Tissue
Duplex Kraft & Waxed Kraft
Waxed Opaque Twisting
Manila
Casein Coated Sulphite
Tissue
Duplex Wet Strength Kraft
Duplex Kraft & Asphalt Laminated Kraft
Duplex Kraft & Bleached Kraft
Coated Sulphite
Laminated Waxed Sulphite to Tissue
Waxed and Treated Sulphite
Laminated Waxed Manila
Triplex Kraft & Kraft & Kraft
Asphalt Laminated Sulphite
Waxed Bleached Kraft
Miscellaneous Papers
*74
$V 'DuPont Competed by Research 'to ■ Improve Quality and Lower Cost.
(Findings 80-122)
80. When duPont commenced sale of cellophane, it was not of a quality which would enable it to compete for flexible packaging business. Cellophane was brittle, not available in the roll form essential for machine ■ packaging operations, non-moistureproof.
245
It was necessary for duPont to engage in research to overcome these deficiencies, and, as they were overcome to continue research looking toward a quality improvement so cellophane would remain competitive with other flexible packaging materials in meeting the requirements of buyers of flexible packaging materials.
246
81. DuPont did not engage in cellophane research with the intent of monopolizing the manufacture of cellophane.
247
82. In duPont organization there were no chemists skilled in viscose chemistry. Research facilities were inadequate and research chemists were difficult to find.
248
83. DuPont by research
249
improved efficiency of its manufacture,
250
reduced cost of production,
251
improved quality of cellophane,
252
and developed new types.
253
DuPont cellophane technical activities expense totalled $24,361,065 during the period 1924-1950. Annual amounts expended for such activities by duPont increased :
254
1924 ......................$ 9,139
1931 ...............'...-....... 471,374
1939 ..................-..... 793,195
1944 ' . .v.......... 1,131,790
1949 ................-....... 2,289,507
1950 ........................ 2,782,706
84. Research projects by duPont originate in problems of sales group, from production problems in plants, or as idea of one of the. research men. Research relating to specific problems was discussed with sales, technical and production management in Wilmington before projects were-approved.
255
85. The purpose of duPont’s research has been to enable it to improve profits and to compete with other manufacturers of flexible packaging materials, including other makers of cellophane, by reducing cost, improving quality and developing types of moistureproof cellophane designed to meet specific packaging needs.
256
This research has involved developments at all stages of the manufacturing processes, and improvement in every phase of cellophane quality.
257
86. Cellophane and other flexible packaging materials are sold to and used interchangeably on packaging- machines and converters' equipment. DuPont's efforts by research to improve quality and broaden cellophane markets not only gave impetus to cellophane sales but also stimulated improvements in other materials and caused improvement in utility
*75
and acceptance of flexible packaging materials generally.
258
87. DuPont’s research to improve quality of cellophane was for purpose of enabling it to meet competition of waxed paper and glassine, and its research to reduce costs of cellophane manufacture was for purpose of lowering costs so prices might be reduced and markets broadened.
259
88. DuPont did not engage in research for purpose of blocking competitors. DuPont’s research has not been channelled into any emphasis for anti-competitive reasons.
260
89. Results of duPont’s research are reflected in manufacturing efficiency of film, and solution of problems in the use of cellophane. Following are illustrations typical of these various results.
(a)
Quality:
Uniformity of sheet flatness, which is essential to printing; and uniformity of film thickness, which is essential to production of rolls that will handle on high speed machines.
261
(b)
Manufacturing Efficiency:
Average pounds cast per casting machine day increased from 3,292 in 1931 to 9,963 in 1950; maximum casting machine speeds increased from 30 meters per minute in 1932 to 120 meters per minute in 1952; average pounds coated per coating tower day increased from 3,-956 in 1931 to 15,371 in 1950; finishing waste dropped from 15.7% in 1924 to 3.5% in 1950,
262
and solvent -recovery in-, creased from 83% to 97%.
263
(c)
New Types: ■
Basic moistureproof-' cellophane; moistureproof coatings with; greater resistance to passage of moisture; types of moistureproof cellophane-tailored for dry or humid climates;’’ types with coating anchored to permit use on wet products; special formula-: tions of moistureproof ' cellophane for ■ fresh meats, differing types of breads ■ and candies, milk bottle hoods and other specialized types.
264
(d)
Solution of Problems in the Use of ■ Cellophane:
Development of adhesives’ for sealing moistureproof cellophane; • heat-sealable coatings; improvement of-slip and other machine running characteristics; determination of type best’ suited for a particular product; deter-' mination of qualities in a wrap for a new product.
265
Research work on the ex-; ampies given in most cases was conducted over a number of years.
266
90. High speed packaging machines' require material in roll form for continuous operation.
267
Uniformity of the-rolls is important at all speeds and be-’ comes critical as speeds of the packaging' machines increase.
268
. 91. When duPont began production’ of cellophane, packaging machinery was’ in existence that handled waxed paper and glassine satisfactorily.
269
Such machinery would not handle cellophane.
270
*76
Shortly after the start of its manufacture of cellophane, duPont promoted development and use of packaging machinery that could handle both cellophane and other flexible packaging materials interchangeably.
271
This program included work with the manufacturers of packaging machinery to assist them with problems created by the attempt to use cellophane on their machines,
272
promotion of use of such machinery for cellophane by customers,
273
and technical service to customers who encountered difficulty in use of cellophane on packaging machinery.
274
The work was done by a group of mechanical engineers employed and retained by duPont.
275
DuPont’s work in the development of packaging machinery and its use has contributed to the growth of sales of cellophane.
276
92. Mechanization of wrapping enabled duPont to obtain new cellophane customers, in industries where cost of hand wrapping prohibited use of the material.
277
93. When duPont commenced manufacturing cellophane the product was not of adequate quality for sale in roll form. Since cellophane has a thickness of 1/1000 of an inch, when wound in commercial rolls of 9" outside diameter, consisting of thousands of layers of film, irregularities of thickness in cellophane as then manufactured created a lumpy, unusable roll. DuPont recognized need for roll cellophane if sales in volume were to be obtained.
278
The characteristic of cellophane for sales in rolls is uniformity of gauge to fine tolerance.
DuPont offered rolls in 1925.
279
By 1930 approximately 50% of its production was sold in roll form.
280
Not much of the production in that period would be salable today for slit rolls.
281
Currently, duPont sells 90% of its production in roll form.
282
DuPont’s development of quality rolls was for the purpose of increasing sales, and had that effect.
283
94. DuPont’s development of moistureproof cellophane was stimulated by duPont’s inability to sell non-moisture-proof cellophane in competition with waxed glassine and waxed paper for wrapping cookies, crackers, candies, biscuits and baked goods.
284
95. DuPont still strives to improve quality of its product and reduce cost of production by the application of research to its manufacturing processes.
285
96. DuPont’s sales efforts increased competition between flexible packaging materials. Through technical research and market analysis, and development of new types of film duPont was able to penetrate markets previously dominated by other materials, and to enter markets that did not use flexible wrapping materials. This stimulated technical developments by other producers of flexible wrapping materials to produce new types that would better compete in the same markets. General development of the market of flexible wrapping materials has stimulated development of new types of films.
286
*77
97. DuPont after years of development produced a type of cellophane that would retain, the natural color of fresh meat for the necessary period of sales life. In 1947, when this film was introduced, Pliofilm was unsuitable for wrapping fresh meat.
287
After duPont’s success, Goodyear was stimulated to research which resulted in development of a type of Pliofilm satisfactory for fresh meat packaging.
288
Fresh meat became one of the most important markets for Pliofilm.
289
98. Cellophane has been successful as a packaging medium. Continued success in the sale of cellophane for pack-, aging depends upon further research to improve quality.
290
99. Plain cellophane was not suitable for wrapping where moisture protection was necessary.
291
DuPont’s experience in attempting to sell plain cellophane for packaging such products as hard candies and bakery goods confirmed plain cellophane could not compete for these uses.
292
In 1924, the same year it began • production of plain cellophane, duPont commenced research to discover moistureproof cellophane.
293
This work was successful and experimental production of moistureproof cellophane began by 1926.
294
Prices for moistureproof cellophane were regularly listed for the first time in November, 1928.
295
The basic product patent on moistureproof cellophane, U. S. Patent No. 1,737,187 was issued on November 26, 1929.
296
100. Invention of moistureproof cellophane enabled sales to customers who were mass producers of low cost products requiring moisture protection.
297
These included most foods and tobacco products., Earliest of such industries was the cigarette and cigar industry, which' in the early 1930’s changed to cellophane
298
as a protective wrapper in place of waxed glassine and other materials previously used.
299
101. After invention of moisture-proof cellophane much of duPont’s research was directed to improvements of the basic product moistureproof cellophane.
300
Forty different types of moistureproof cellophane were developed by duPont.
301
Research work connected with moistureproof cellophane included development of adhesives,
302
development of coatings that could be sealed by heat without the use of adhesives,
303
development of anchoring the coating,
304
and development of coatings with special characteristics required by different
*78
products.
305
DuPont was issued patents from time to time on various of its inventions.
306
Validity of patents is not challenged.
307
102'. DuPont developed over fifty types of cellophane tailored for end uses.
308
For example, different types are manufactured for fresh vegetables,
309
for cigarettes,
310
for hot hard candies,
311
for cold hard candies,
312
for wet products,
313
for frozen products,
314
for prepared meats,
315
and for fresh meats.
316
103. Since entering cellophane, duPont has produced 174 varieties of cellophane.
317
In 1949, duPont made sales of 108 different varieties of cellophane.
318
104. Original moistureproof cellophane could not be sold for mass-produced bakery products,
319
which were packaged by machines in heat sealing materials, especially waxed paper and waxed glassine.
320
Moistureproof cellophane, since not sealable by heat, would not work on these machines.
321
Adhesives necessary to seal moistureproof cellophane had an objectionable reaction on bakery products.
322
DuPont research developed a heat sealing moistureproof cellophane by 19 32.
323
This enabled penetration of the bakery industry to which duPont had been unable to sell in volume.
324
During 1933 duPont direct sales to that industry amounted to 4,500,000 lbs.
325
and in 1934 to 7,000,000 lbs.
326
This increased over 13,000,000 lbs. in 1937, and continued to grow.
327
The bakery industry is now the largest single consumer of cellophane, accounting for 52,700,000 lbs. of duPont cellophane in 1949.
328
105. Moistureproof coatings unless anchored have tendency to slough off in the presence of considerable moisture,
329
and unanchored moistureproof film is unsuitable for packaging such products as frozen foods and fish, fresh produce, and meats.
330
Research on anchoring the coating was undertaken by duPont in 1928 to obtain a film adaptable to such uses.
331
DuPont’s research resulted in an anchored coating,
332
and research has continued for the purpose of improving quality of product and reducing cost of its production
333
A further development by duPont of a film for fresh meat opened that market to cellophane.
334
Du
*79
Pont’s research oh anchoring the moistureproof coating led to substantial improvement in duPont’s sales.
335
106. Development of anchoring for the moistureproof coating on duPont cellophane was stimulated by loss of business to glassine, resulting from loss of cellophane’s moistureproofness when the coating came into contact with greasy or wet products.
336
107. Manufacturing process obtained by duPont from the French was sound from engineering standpoint.
337
However, duPont made improvements by placing the process under control for quality purposes, improving machine efficiencies and redesigning machines to enable more continuous operation.
338
108. DuPont by its efforts made improvements in the efficiency and cost of each step in the manufacture of plain cellophane and of moistureproof cellophane. Phases of manufacture át which improvements were made include steeping the wood pulp, shredding the pulp into alkali cellulose, ripening the ■ alkali cellulose, xanthation, mixing xanthate with caustic soda to form into viscose, control and design of easting hopper and lips, handling of film through baths of the casting machine, design of rolls, drying film, application and drying of moistureproof coatings, recovery of solvent, and slitting of finished film into commercial rolls.
339
109. The amount of raw materials required to make one-pound of cellophane has been reduced as follows:
wood pulp ......................20% caustic soda.............. 40% carbon bisulphide................33% sulphuric acid...................60%
340
Finished product output per payroll hour has been increased 380%.
341
Finished'waste has been reduced from 15.3% to 3.5%.
342
; Maximum casting speeds have increased from 30 meters per minute to Í20 meters per minute in 1952.
343
Speed of film in the coating towers has increased from 30 meters per minute to upwards of 200 meters per minute.
344
- Solvent recovery has been increased from 83% up to 97%.
345
The speed at which rolls are slit increased from 150 feet a minute to 1,000 feet a minute.
346
DuPont’s productive capacity in 1941 for 56 machines was 110,000,000 pounds, while in 1952 with the same number of machines, its production capacity was 218,000,000 pounds.
347
The average pounds of film produced per casting machine day by duPont increased from 3,292 in 1931 to 5,698 in 1944 and 9,963 in 1950. Average pounds of film coated per coating tower day by duPont increased from 3,956 in 1931 to 8,107 in 1944 and 15,371 in 1950.
348
All of this indicia of the efficiency of manufacture is .persuasive.
349
110. .In the last two years there has been one lost time accident among the 4,000 employees in duPont’s cellophane
*80
plants, despite the existence of dangerous elements in cellophane manufacture.
350
111. Since duPont commenced manufacture of cellophane, it has carried out laboratory analyses of flexible packaging materials which compete for the same end uses as cellophane. These tests cover physical and chemical properties that are important in packaging.
351
They are not made with any anti-competitive intent, but for the purpose of appraising the characteristics of competing materials as a guide to improvements in duPont’s products. DuPont tries to maintain as high performance in its cellophane, relative to the performance of other flexible packaging materials, as it can.
352
112. Since invention of moisture-proof cellophane duPont has improved cellophane as to uniformity of gauge, degree of moistureproofness, ease of heat sealing, reduction of the brittleness of the film when exposed to humidity changes, and facility of operating of cellophane on high speed presses and converting and packaging machinery.
353
113. Waxed paper, glassine, Pliofilm, foil, Saran polyethylene and other flexible packaging materials have been improved for packaging use in the last 20 years. These improvements include strength, printability, ease of use on packaging machinery and variation of characteristics to serve specific uses.
354
Competition of cellophane has stimulated these improvements in other flexible packaging materials.
355
114. Improvements with respect to glassine since 1924 include:
1. An increase in strength, both bursting strength and strength when wet.
356
2. Improvement in flexibility and folding qualities so as to make it less brittle and more acceptable as a wrap for a small merchandise where creases and corners in a wrap occur.
357
3. Development and improvement of more transparent types.
358
4. Development and improvement of new coatings for glassine to provide better protection against moisture, grease, vapors, etc.
359
5. Improvement of printing.
360
6. Improvement of transparency.
361
7. Improvement in variety of types produced for- different packaging use.
362
115. Improvements in waxed paper since 1924 include:
1. Development and improvement of translucent types of waxed sulphite.
363
2. Development and improvement of highly opaque types of waxed paper for better background to printing.
364
*81
3. Development of hard crystalline waxes which are not sticky, will not rub off, and are glossy.
365
4. Development and improvement of process printing methods which enable highly decorative effects, including direct color photographic reproductions, to be obtained with waxed paper wraps.
366
5. Improvement of moisture resistance.
367
6. Improvement of ease and strength of seal.
368
116. Polyethylene film produced had disadvantages in limpness, sealability, printability and other factors.
369
Many of these deficiencies could be corrected through research,
370
and were.
371
These improvements made it an effective competitor for uses previously served by cellophane and other flexible wrapping materials.
372
117. Although duPont in January, 1949, thought cellophane was secure against competition from other transparent films for self-service merchandising of fresh meat, luncheon meats, and fresh produce,
373
in fact Goodyear in 1950 developed a type of Pliofilm satisfactory for fresh meats, which became a major Pliofilm market.
374
Polyethylene and cellulose acetate were being improved, and making increased penetrations in the fresh produce field.
375
DuPont’s development of specialized types for self-service selling of meats and fresh produce gave it a start over other materials, but improvements in the other materials enabled them to capture part of these markets from cellophane.
118. Saran, Pliofilm and polyethylene when first on the market were difficult to heat seal and run on packing machines, but are
now
heat sealed and mechanically run on a commercial basis on commonly used equipment.
376
119. Qualities of types of Pliofilm have been improved since its appearance in the 1930’s.
377
Odor has been eliminated, and the film has been made durable at low temperatures.
378
Important to Pliofilm sales are improvements in adaptability of machines to convert and package with Pliofilm.
379
Types have been developed that enabled penetration of new markets, notably fresh meat and dried fruit packaging.
380
120. Cellulose acetate has been improved as to toughness of film. Improvements have been made in handling cellulose acetate film mechanically to avoid generation of static electricity.
381
Heat sealing cellulose acetate film is now under development.
382
121. Sales of cellophane bags are vulnerable to competition from polyethylene.
383
*82
122. Other manufacturers of flexible packaging materials engage in research to improve their products and sales. DuPont does not have power to subvert use or to engross trade secrets and technical knowledge either as to cellophane or as to flexible packaging materials.
384
VI. DuPont Competed by Lowering Prices.
(Findings 123-149)
.123. The objective of duPont was to reduce price to a level where cellophane could compete with other flexible packaging materials. Price of cellophane in relation to prices of other flexible packaging materials was such that only luxury items would use it as a wrap. It was necessary to develop volume, lower cost and improve quality and bring the price of cellophane down to a point where it would receive acceptance in the packaging markets. DuPont sought a low profit per unit of sale in effort to achieve lower prices which would develop volume sales and increase profits.
385
124. From start of production of cellophane in 1924 until 1947 duPont made 21 price reductions which lowered price of plain cellophane (300 gauge) per pound from $2.65 to 330.
386
During period from the first commercial offer of moistureproof film to 1947 duPont reduced the price per pound (300 gauge) from $1.60 to 410.
387
Since 1947 duPont’s prices for these types have increased to 490 and 510, respectively, as of December 35, 195 0.
388
125. Above price reductions cellophane customers enjoyed reductions in cost of using duPont cellophane during the period 1924 to date as the result of improvement in quality of duPont cellophane
389
without any increase in price per pound.
390
126. Annual average prices received by duPont per pound of cellophane sold have been:
391
Year Average Price
1924 ' 2.508
1925 1.927
1926 1.713
1927 1.431
1928 1.211
1929 1930 1.066 .863
1931 .643
1932 .556
1933 .504
1934 .481
1935 .431
1936 .413
1937 .415
1938 .416
1939 .398
1940 .380
1941 .382
1942 .396
1943 .404
1944 .419
1945 .416
1946 .401
1947 .419
1948 .460
1949 .483
1950 .490
127. DuPont’s price reductions were made by improvement, in .efficiency of manufacturing and by increased volume
*83
of sales attained by improvements in the quality of duPont’s cellophane.
392
128. All types of duPont moisture-proof cellophane are sold at prices different from those of duPont plain cellophane.
393
129. ' Types of duPont moistureproof cellophane are sold at different prices, and have different characteristics.
394
130. 1949 average wholesale prices of flexible packaging materials in the United States were:
395
Packaging Material Price per 1,000 sq. in. (cents) Price per lb. (cents) Yield per. lb. (sq. in.)
Saran 100 Gauge #517....... 6.1 99.0
16,300
Cellulose Acetate .00088" ............... 3.3 82.0 25.000
Polyethylene .002" — 18" Flat Width.. 5.4 81.0 15.000
Pliofilm 120 Gauge N 2........ 3.8 80.8 21.000
Aluminum Foil .00035" ............... 1.8 52.2 29,200
Moistureproof Cellophane 300 MST-51 .......... 2.3 47.8 21,000
Plain Cellophane 300 PT............... 2.1 44.8 21,500
Vegetable Parchment 27# .................. 1.4 22.3 16,000
Bleached Glassine 25# .................. 1.0 17.8 17.280
Bleached Greaseproof 25# .................. .9 15.8 17.280
Plain Waxed Sulphite 25# Self-Sealing ..... ' 1.1 15.2 14,400
Plain Waxed Sulphite 25# Coated Opaque ... .7 11.9 17.280
Cry-O-Rap ............. . Sold only in converted form, converted quotations. No un-
131. December 15, 1950, the latest date for which list prices are in the record, duPont’s price for 300 gauge moistureproof heat sealing cellophane was 51# per lb.; for 300 moistureproof heat sealing anchored cellophane, 59^ per lb.; for 300 gauge non-moistureproof cellophane, 49?5 per lb.; ■ and for 300 gauge non-moistureproof rancidity resistent colored cellophane, 67?! per lb.
396
132. The price of cellophane is today an. obstacle to its sales in competition with other flexible packaging materials.
397
*84
133. Cellophane has always been higher priced than the two largest selling flexible packaging materials, wax paper and glassine, and this has represented a disadvantage to sales of cellophane.
398
134. DuPont considered as a factor in the determination of its prices the prices of waxed paper, glassine, greaseproof, vegetable parchment, and other flexible packaging materials.
399
135. DuPont, in reducing its prices, intended to narrow price differential between cellophane and packaging papers, particularly glassine and waxed paper.
400
The objective of this effort has been to increase the use of cellophane. Each price reduction was intended to open up new uses for cellophane, and to attract new customers who had not used cellophane because of its price.
401
136. The ratio between moisture-proof cellophane prices and glassine prices, and between moistureproof cellophane and waxed paper prices, diminished during 1929-1949. In January, 1929, the price of MT cellophane was seven times that of glassine; in June, 1934, 4 times the price of glassine and 4% times the price of waxed paper. In January, 1949, MST cellophane price was little more than twice that of glassine, and only twice that of waxed paper
402
137. Relationship between prices for various types of cellophane and prices for various types of glassine affects ability of the producers of the respective materials to sell their products.
403
138. DuPont’s proportion of the United States production of flexible packaging materials has increased in almost direct relation to the steady decrease of the ratio of cellophane prices to glassine and waxed paper prices.
404
139. Steady narrowing of price gap between cellophane and glassine and waxed paper enables duPont to get new marginal business from time to time, i. e., accounts who had previously not used cellophane because of its relatively high price compared to the price of waxed paper and glassine.
405
140. Some users are sensitive to the cost of flexible packaging materials;
406
others are not.
407
Users to whom cost is important include substantial business: for example, General Foods, Armour, Curtiss Candy Co., and smaller users in the bread industry, cracker industry, and frozen food industry.
408
These customers are unwilling to use more cellophane because of its relatively high price,
409
would use more if the
*85
price were reduced,
410
and have increased their use as the price of cellophane has been reduced.
411
141. The cost factor slips accounts ■away from cellophane. This hits at the precarious users, whose profit margins •on their products are low, and has been put in motion by competitive developments in the user’s trade. Examples in-•elude the losses of business to glassine in candy bar wraps in the 30’s,
412
frozen food business to waxed paper in the late 40’s,
413
and recent losses to glassine in cracker packaging
414
142. The price of cellophane was reduced to expand the market for cellophane. DuPont did not reduce prices for cellophane with intent of monopolizing manufacture or with intent of suppressing competitors.
415
143. DuPont reduced cellophane prices to enable sales to be made for new uses from which higher prices had excluded cellophane, and to expand sales. Reductions were made as sales volume •and market conditions warranted. In •determining price reductions, duPont considered relationship between its manufacturing costs and proposed prices, possible additional volume that might be gained by the price reduction, effect of price reduction upon the return duPont would obtain on its investment. It considered the effect its lowered price might have on the manufacture by others’ but this Possible result of a price reduction ^was never a motive for the reduction.
416
144. DuPont never lowered cellophane prices below cost, and never dropped cellophane prices temporarily to gain a competitive advantage
417
145. As duPont's manufacturing costs declined, 1924 to 1935, duPont reduced prices for cellophane.
418
When costs of raw materials increased subsequent to 1935, it postponed reductions until 1938 and 1939.
419
Subsequent increases in cost of raw material and labor brought about price increases after 1947.
420
146. During period 1932-35, duPont made reductions in cellophane prices, but was unable to sell productive capacity of its cellophane plants.
421
147. In May 1930, it made an announcement of a reduction and of further reductions to be effective in August and October.
422
DuPont’s principal reasons for advance announcement were to influence consumers to use up their inventories rather than to place further orders, since new productive capacity was expected to come into operation in
*86
October, 1930, and to stimulate interest on the part of users who were not interested in cellophane at the current price but would be interested in anticipation of lower future prices. The advance announcement would give anyone contemplating cellophane manufacture notice of duPont’s idea of the proper price level.
423
The price reductions made by duPont in August and October 1930 were greater than had been announced in advance.
424
When a second advance announcement was suggested in 1936, management rejected the suggestion because business conditions which impelled the 1930 announcement did not exist; i. e., in 1936 customers were purchasing only for immediate use, and not to build up inventory.
425
148. Same individuals were the prin-' cipal duPont executives in duPont Rayon Co. and duPont Cellophane Co.
426
Same policies of improving quality, lowering cost of production, and reducing unit price to gain greater volume of sales were followed as to both companies.
427
149. When duPont commenced manufacture of viscose rayon, it made a low percentage of the United States output, and for years its percentage of domestic sales was 20%. During that period its price policy for rayon was the same as for cellophane, which was the more the price could be reduced within limits the more of the article could be sold.
428
VII. Competition Between Cellophane and Other Flexible Packaging Materials.
(Findings 150-278)
150. DuPont has promoted sale of cellophane for packaging material for products previously wrapped in other materials or not packaged. Growth of cellophane industry has been due to development of new uses, rather than an increase of volume in established uses.
429
The baking industry, the tobacco industry and the meat industry, each of which accounted for less than 2% of the small total sales in the early years, have become end uses of major importance, consuming millions of pounds annually.
430
151. DuPont did not promote the sale of cellophane with intent of monopolizing the manufacture and sale of cellophane, or with intent of monopolizing the manufacture and sale of flexible packaging materials.
431
152. DuPont promoted use of cellophane under an idea of developmental sales. DuPont acted on belief to increase volume of cellophane sales it was necessary to promote it for uses where advantages to the user were sufficient to offset the price advantage of competing flexible packaging materials. From selling standpoint, duPont’s implementation of the developmental concept involved these activities:
432
(a) Reduction of price per pound to reduce cost of cellophane.
433
*87
(b) Development of packaging machinery and promotion of its use to reduce cost of application of cellophane.
434
(e) Detailed study of the products and distribution practices of industries that appeared to be potential volume users, in order to determine what characteristics . cellophane would require to function effectively, and to determine in what ways cellophane could justify its cost by increasing sales of product, reducing distribution costs for product.-
435
•
(d) Packaging development -service to assist customers in designing practical packages with cellophane.
436
(e) Technical services to assist customers in solving problems created by the use of cellophane.
437
(f) Market studies to determine purchasing habits of retail consumers of packaged products.
438
(g) Marketing studies to. determine effect on sales of packaging a given product in cellophane.
439
(h) Consumer advertising to popularize products packaged in cellophane.
440
(i) Sales and technical assistance to converters engaged in the manufacture and sale of cellophane processed for packaging purposes.
441
153. To . increase use of cellophane duPont urged installation by customers of packaging machinery, wrapping and bag making machines. Use of such machines lowered cost of using cellophane, and tended to increase amount used. Purpose of such promotion by duPont of the use of packaging machinery was to lower the cost of packaging with cellophane and to enable cellophane to compete with other materials and to encourage use of cellophane by various types of customers.
442
154. DuPont provided service to machine use of cellophane to users and prospective users without imposing obligation they purchase duPont cellophane, and without regard to size of possible purchases. Such services were rendered to persons using only Sylvania cellophane, to persons using both duPont and Sylvania cellophane, and to ■persons using no cellophane at all.
443
155. Users of flexible packaging materials redesign packages seeking new ways of advertising their products, increasing protection or reducing cost. All manufacturers of such materials compete by rendering in varying degree technical services to these users including aid in package design,
444
development of material to meet special needs.
445
156. DuPont considered as part of the future market for cellophane much of the business enjoyed by waxed paper and glassine. This is reflected in estimates by duPont of the potential for cellophane- sales.
446
157. In uses which account for 75% of'duPont cellophane sold (packaging in food industries, textiles, paper goods, tobacco products) cellophane competes with . aluminum foil, cellulose acetate, Cry-O-Rap, greaseproof paper, glassine, Pliofilm, polyethylene film, Saran, sulphite paper, vegetable parchment and
*88
waxed paper. DuPont cellophane competes with waxed paper and glassine, and with one or more of the balance of these materials in every subdivision of the food industry.
447
158. Cellophane is forced to meet competition of other flexible packaging materials. The competition between the materials is intense and duPont cannot exercise market control or monopoly powers.
159. These are elements considered by users of flexible packaging materials in the selection of a material:
1. Type of protection the contents of the package will require, e. g., protection against dirt, handling, moisture transmission, flavor contamination, etc.
448
2. Degree of protection required.
449
3. Facility of materials that satisfy considerations to run on the type of machinery operated by the user of the material.
450
4. Degree of tradition of a certain package appearance. This must be judged by the user of the material against the nature of the market in which he sells his product.
451
5. Degree of merchandising appeal.
452
6. Economy offered by various materials. Both the selling price of materials and economies or expenses resulting from their use must be weighed.
453
160. Packaging application presents problems arising from the nature of the product to be wrapped.
454
161. Manufacturer of packageable products has a choice of materials from which to choose. Purchase price, cost of application, service available, and functional qualities of each material are factors which control choice, and control volume of material that can be sold in competition with others.
455
162. Throughout the period of sale of cellophane, it has been at a price disadvantage as against flexible packaging materials of other kinds. Evidence is throughout the period of duPont Manufacture and sale of cellophane the price of cellophane, including both purchase price and cost of use, has been a factor in its competition with other flexible packaging materials.
456
*89
163. Evidence is throughout the period of duPont manufacture and sale of cellophane, it has competed with other flexible packaging materials on the basis of the composite physical properties of each material and the degree of each such property.
457
*90
164. Throughout the period of duPont sale of cellophane, as result of operation of competitive factors as between duPont cellophane and other flexible packaging materials, duPont cellophane has gained part or all of the packaging
*91
business of certain' specific accounts from other flexible packaging. materials and vice versa. Evidence is shifts of business between duPont cellophane and other flexible packaging materials'have been frequent, continuing and contested.
458
*92
165. Identical consumer products of a producer are available on the market at the same time in different packaging materials. Illustrations of this situation
*93
in the market include products such as bread,
459
candy,
460
Campfire marshmallows,
461
M & M candies,
462
Beechnut gum,
463
Kleenex,
464
Armour’s bacon,
465
General Food’s coconut,
466
and varieties of National Biscuit Company’s cookies.
467
166. As cellophane sales increased it was useful in packaging operations of smaller companies. In 1950 duPont had 5,000 customers of which only 2% were large companies, such as national bakers, cigarette manufacturers, major meat packers, etc.
468
167. Glassine
469
and waxed paper
470
are both made in a number of varieties. These types vary in transparency, opacity, moistureproofness, price, gloss, and sealability. Additional varieties are engineered for specific customers on particular orders.
471
168. Glassine offers a degree of transparency greatest per unit of cost of all packaging materials. Its degree of transparency is all that is needed and its cost is low.
472
169. Glassine and greaseproof papers compete with other wrapping and packaging materials. Cellophane is the product with which they compete directly.
473
170. Glassine and greaseproof papers are sold on the ability of the different types to furnish protective packaging for various products. This is the same approach as that of selling moisture-proof cellophane.
474
171. Eye appeal in the flexible packaging business is any appearance that arrests the eye. It is not transparency and luster of the wrap. It is obtained by printing to achieve a colorful wrapper.
475
*94
. 172 From 1924, duPont engaged in developmental selling program for the bakery industry.
476
This work contributed to duPont’s volume of sales to that industry, which has become its largest outlet. This creative selling involved:
(1) Invention of moistureproof cellophane, followed by development of a heat sealing type and of special types for different bakery products.
477
(2) Work with bakeries and machinery manufacturers to modify wrapping machines to handle cellophane and service the use of cellophane on such machines.
478
(3) Development of standard formulae for sweet dough and promotion of manufacture of sweet dough goods by bakers.
479
(4) Market research as to distribution of bakery products in retail stores and by house to house trucks.
480
(5) Engineering work on. mechanization of soft cake manufacture and on machines to wrap soft cake in cellophane or other wraps.
481
(6) Studies of the characteristics- of particular bakery products, such as doughnuts, to determine what characteristics cellophane must have to package them satisfactorily
482
(7) Comparative studies of the efficiency of cellophane, waxed paper and glassine as a wrap for bakery products.
483
(8) Energetic customer by customer selling.
484
SPECIFIC USES.
1. White Bread.
(Findings 173-189)
173. DuPont undertook promotion of cellophane for white bread in the early 1930’s and has been selling cellophane for white bread since 1933.
485
It is used to some extent for that purpose in every section, of the country.
486
DuPont’s progress has been salesmanship rather than meeting spontaneous demand, since the disadvantage of cellophane’s higher initial cost over waxed paper must be overcome by sales arguments that emphasize its ability to increase sales and the hidden savings which result from its use.
487
In 1951 duPont sold between 8,000,000 and 9,000,000 pounds of cellophane for white bread.
488
174. For packaging of white bread the wrapping material used besides moistureproof cellophane is waxed paper. Some waxed glassine is also used.
489
Waxed paper was being widely used for wrapping white bread when cellophane was first sold for this purpose.
490
Plain cellophane is not a satisfactory wrap for baked goods.
491
175. Principal obstacle to be overcome by duPont in selling moistureproof cellophane for the packaging of white bread was its price in relation to waxed
*95
paper and glassine. Depending on how the materials were used, cellophane bread wraps cost in the early 1930’s between three to five times the cost of waxed paper and from two and one-half to four times the cost of glassine. The low profit margin on white bread and the competition between bakers made the higher cost of cellophane a serious obstacle.
492
176. A deterrent to use of cellophane by a white bread baker was the lack of wrapping equipment which could mechanically apply cellophane. To use cellophane the baker had to wrap it by hand which increased his costs, or convert existing equipment to handle cellophane, or invest as much as $3,000 in a new wrapping machine designed to handle cellophane as well as the papers.
493
177. To minimize difficulty of wrapping white bread in cellophane on wrapping machines, duPont salesmen in the thirties made efforts at adapting bakers’ installed wrapping machines to handle cellophane, by modifying the behavior of the machine by piano wire.
494
DuPont engineers contributed to the development of machines which would handle cellophane or waxed paper with equal efficiency by adjustment.
495
178. Another deterrent to use of cellophane by a baker to wrap white bread was the inferior durability of cellophane and its tendency to shrink and break in dry or cold weather.
496
179. One selling point made by duPont promoting its cellophane for use in the white bread trade was its moisture protection. Many bakers found waxed paper provided adequate protection against moisture during the 48 hour turnover period allotted to white bread and did not believe there was need for moistureproofness in any greater degree.
497
180. In the thirties, duPont emphasized transparency of cellophane as a selling point. Many bakers believed glassine when wrapped closely about a loaf of- bread was sufficiently transparent to enable their product to be inspected through the wrap. Others considered transparency a disadvantage.
498
181. In the thirties white bread bakers were accustomed to the distinctive appearance of a bread wrap in their advertising. Waxed paper lent itself more readily than cellophane to the advertising practices of that trade.
499
182. To sell cellophane to white bread bakers in the face of its disadvantages vis-a-vis waxed paper and glassine, duPont had to develop a sales method which minimized high price-of cellophane. This method was to analyze distribution, production, selling costs of the baker and to associate suggested reductions in these costs with the use of higher priced cellophane.
DuPont salesmen would discover a baker who was a prospective customer, had an attenuated distribution route, and was making a low return because of high distribution costs per dollar of sale on that route. The salesmen would plan a rerouting for the baker in an effort to gain a greater volume of sale on a shorter distribution route, and tie it to the argument cellophane wraps on his white .bread would gain for him a greater volume of sale on a -shorter route. DuPont salesmen would find improper production methods in the baker’s plant produced a high proportion of badly sealed waxed paper wrappers. These loaves could not be sold either because of the appearance of the unsealed wrap or be
*96
cause the loaf would get stale. DuPont salesmen would inspect the production methods, suggest methods to improve the sealing of the wraps, and seek to persuade the baker cellophane as the wrap would produce this greater efficiency and lower production cost.
500
188. DuPont’s sales methods for promoting the use of cellophane for white bread met with success and white bread bakers were induced to use cellophane wraps for part or all of their white bread in lieu of the previously used waxed paper or glassine wraps. Many bakers switched to cellophane from waxed paper or glassine and then shifted back, having lost money either because the higher cost cellophane wraps did not increase their volume of sales or because the baker overestimated the amount of increase he could get by using cellophane and lost money on large unsold production.
501
184. White bread bakers shift from cellophane to waxed paper or glassine because of changes in the level of price of ingredients of bread: flour, sugar, shortening, etc. The profit margin in white bread can be reduced by rises in costs of these materials to a point at which the baker believes his return will increase if he shifts to a cheaper wrapping material. An example of this occurred in the mid-thirties when nearly every baker in northwest Pennsylvania discontinued the use of cellophane and reverted to waxed paper because of a 50-60fi increase per barrel in the price of flour.
502
185. A new promotion gains greater volume for one baker but tends to reduce volume of others. In many cases bakers whose business suffered, abandoned cellophane wrappers and reverted to waxed paper in order to prevent the loss of profit. This brought about losses of business for duPont.
503
186. Shifts of business between waxed paper and glassine and duPont cellophane for wrapping white bread have occurred from the early thirties up to the present. These shifts of packaging business have been caused by the operation of competitive factors stressing advantages and disadvantages of cellophane as against waxed paper and glassine, and by fluctuating emphasis, in the baking industry, upon cost savings.
504
187. Cellophane is still at a price disadvantage to waxed paper and glassine.
505
Profit margins in the white bread trade are still low and ability of bakers to use cellophane and return a profit remains in a narrow range.
506
Machines have been developed, which will wrap automatically with cellophane at high speeds.
507
Improvement of process printing of waxed paper and in the opacity of waxed paper have made waxed paper a more commercially desirable wrapper.
508
Improvements in the transparency of glassine and wax sulphite have narrowed this advantage cellophane once held over these wraps.
509
188. DuPont has promoted sales of cellophane for wrapping white bread, except that during the period of cellophane shortage from 1941 through 1948, duPont did not attempt to increase the use of cellophane for this purpose. DuPont could not supply an industry-wide demand for cellophane for wrapping white bread and stated this to the baking trade and to converters who were active in
*97
promoting printed cellophane for white bread.
510
189. Sales methods used by dúPont to sell cellophane to various trades for packaging of many different products are the same as those applied to the white bread trade. They are variations upon the central theme of attempting to persuade the individual customer cellophane packaging will increase sales of his product and his profits.
511
2. Specialty Breads.
(Findings 190-196)
190. Breads other than white, such as rye, whole wheat, raisin, etc. are known as specialty breads.
512
Flexible packaging materials used to wrap specialty breads are: Waxed paper, glassine, moistureproof cellophane, and some aluminum foil.
513
191. Prior to 1933-1934 no specialty bread was produced by wholesale bakers. DuPont, in order to provide a market for cellophane, promoted the development of specialty bread. DuPont urged production of specialty loaves by bakers, on the basis specialty loaves would be novel when introduced and could be changed to remain novel; that absence of standardization of specialty breads would permit each baker to set his own price and not have to meet the competition of a standard price and product, and specialty loaves marketed in cellophane would attain substantial volume and profit. The amount of cellophane sold for wrapping specialty bread increased from nil in the early thirties to its present volume, 15,700,000 pounds.
514
192. As sales of specialty breads increased, much of the volume of these breads was wrapped in waxed paper, glassine and aluminum foil.
515
193. Advantages or disadvantages of cellophane as against waxed paper and glassine for the wrapping of specialty breads were much the same as in the case of white bread.
516
194. Operation of advantages and disadvantages of cellophane as a wrap for specialty bread produced shifts of specialty bread bakers between cellophane and waxed paper or glassine, which hav

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2281953. Public record. Not legal advice.