[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 14, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14046]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 14, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division

 

United States v. Pilkington plc and Pilkington Holdings Inc.; 
Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, 
Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the 
United States District Court for the District of Arizona at Tucson in 
United States v. Pilkington plc and Pilkington Holdings Inc., Civil No. 
94-345 TUC-WDB as to both defendants.

    The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 1 and 2 
of the Sherman Act by restraining exports of float glass design and 
construction services by enforcing territorial and other restraints in 
license agreements entered into long ago that are now unjustified by 
sufficiently valuable intellectual property rights. Most of the 
agreements are more than 20 years old.

    The proposed Final Judgment enjoins defendants from enforcing 
license provisions that restrain their United States-based licensees' 
freedom to use float glass technology anywhere in the world, and from 
enforcing license restrictions against their other licensees that 
restrain the licensees' freedom to use float glass technology in the 
United States. It also enjoins defendants from asserting any 
proprietary know-how rights in such technology against individuals or 
firms in the United States who are not licensees.

    Float glass technology is used to make over 90 percent of the glass 
used for windows, windshields, architectural panels, and mirrors.

    Public comment on the proposed Final Judgment is invited within the 
statutory 60-day comment period. Such comments and responses thereto 
will be published in the Federal Register and filed with the Court. 
Comments should be directed to Gail Kursh, Chief, Professions and 
Intellectual Property Section, room 9903, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Antitrust Division, 555 4th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001 
(telephone: 202/307-5799).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

United States District Court for the District of Arizona

    United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Pilkington plc and 
Pilkington Holdings Inc., Defendants. Civil Action No. 94-345. 
Filed: May 25, 1994. Judge Browning.

Stipulation

    It is stipulated by and between the undersigned parties, by their 
respective attorneys, that:
    1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this 
action and over each of the parties hereto, and venue of this action is 
proper in the District of Arizona;
    2. The parties consent that a Final Judgment in the form hereto 
attached may be filed and entered by the Court, upon the motion of any 
party or upon the Court's own motion, at any time after compliance with 
the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (15 
U.S.C. 16), and without further notice to any party or other 
proceedings, provided that Plaintiff has not withdrawn its consent, 
which it may do at any time before the entry of the proposed Final 
Judgment by serving notice thereof on Defendants and by filing that 
notice with the Court; and
    3. Defendants agree to be bound by the provisions of the proposed 
Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court. If the Plaintiff 
withdraws its consent or if the proposed Final Judgment is not entered 
pursuant to this Stipulation, this Stipulation shall be of no effect 
whatsoever, and the making of this Stipulation shall be without 
prejudice to any party in this or in any other proceeding.


    Dated this 25th day of May, 1994.

    For Plaintiff The United States of America.
Robert E. Litan,

Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Mark C. Schecther,

Deputy Director of Operations.

Gail Kursh,

Chief, Professions & Intellectual Property Section.

David C. Jordan,

Assistant Chief Professions & Intellectual Property Section.

K. Craig Wildfang,

Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust 
Division.

Kurt Shaffert,

Thomas H. Liddle,

Molly DeBusschere,

John B. Arnett, Sr.,

M. Lee Doane,

Attorneys, U.S. Dep't. of Justice, Antitrust Division, room 9903, 
J.C.B. 555 4th Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20001, 202/307-0467.

    For the Defendants:
Rober E. Leverton,

Chief Executive, Pilkington plc.

Peter H. Grunwell,

Director, Plikington Holdings Inc.

John H. Shenefield,

Counsel for Defendants, Pilkington plc and Pilkington Holdings, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Arizona

    United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Pilkington plc; and 
Pilkington Holdings Inc., Defendants. Civil Action No. 94-345. 
Filed: May 25, 1994, Judge Browning.

Final Judgment

    Plaintiff, the United States of America, having filed its Complaint 
on May 25, 1994, and plaintiff and defendants, by their respective 
attorneys, having consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without 
trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and before the 
taking of any testimony in this action, and without this Final Judgment 
constituting any evidence against or an admission by any defendant to 
any such issue;
And defendants having agreed to be bound by the provisions of this 
Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court;
    Therefore, before the taking of any testimony and without trial or 
adjudication of any such issue of fact or law herein, and upon consent 
of the parties hereto, it is hereby
    ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows:

I

Jurisdiction

    This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action 
and of each of the parties consenting hereto. The Complaint states a 
claim upon which relief may be granted against defendants under 
sections 1, 2 and 6a of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, 6a.

II

Definitions

    As used in this Final Judgment:
    A. ``Agreement'' means any contract, agreement or understanding, 
whether oral or written, or any term or provision thereof.
    B. ``Confidentiality'' means the non-disclosure of information 
under an agreement, undertaking or obligation arising under applicable 
law to maintain its secrecy and/or limit its use.
    C. ``Fees'' means money paid to the defendants for the right to use 
FLOAT TECHNOLOGY, including, but not limited to, royalties, lump sum 
payments and line fees.
    D. ``Final Award'' means the Final Award dated August, 1992 in the 
arbitration proceedings between PPG Industries, Inc. and PILKINGTON.
    E. ``Flat Glass'' means glass formed in a flat shape and glass 
formed flat and then bent or curved.
    F. ``Float Glass'' means FLAT GLASS manufactured by floating molten 
glass on the surface of a bath of molten metal.
    G. ``Float Technology'' means float process technology in existence 
on or before the date of the STIPULATION that is appropriate and useful 
for the design, construction, and/or operation of a float bath used in 
making FLOAT GLASS.
    H. ``Foreign Licensee'' means any LICENSEE that is not a U.S. 
LICENSEE.
    I. ``Licensee'' means any person, company, or entity that has 
entered into a LICENSE AGREEMENT with PILKINGTON.
    J. ``License Agreement'' means any AGREEMENT, whether or not 
denominated as such, in being as of the date of the STIPULATION, that 
provided or provides for, or acknowledges or recognizes, the licensing 
of, or the right to use, FLOAT TECHNOLOGY for the manufacture of FLOAT 
GLASS, including, without limitation, any AGREEMENT (i) For 
sublicensing or (ii) for settling any dispute regarding rights to FLOAT 
TECHNOLOGY.
    K. ``Limitations'' means: (1) Any limitation, or restriction of 
territories, fields, markets, or customers for the design and 
construction, or supervision of construction, of FLOAT GLASS plants, or 
the manufacture of FLOAT GLASS; and/or (2) any restriction or 
limitation, or purported restriction or limitation of the use of FLOAT 
TECHNOLOGY, whether the result of an affirmative prohibition or a 
limited authorization.
    L. ``Non-licensee'' means any person, company, or entity which has 
not entered into a LICENSE AGREEMENT with PILKINGTON.
    M. ``North America'' means the United States of America, Canada and 
the Republic of Mexico.
    N. ``Pilkington'' means Defendant Pilkington plc.
    O. ``Stipulation'' means the stipulation entered into by the 
parties to this action dated May 25, 1994.
    P. ``Subject Float Technology'' means FLOAT TECHNOLOGY that in 
relation to any given LICENSEE was disclosed to that LICENSEE under its 
LICENSE AGREEMENT other than FLOAT TECHNOLOGY disclosed by PILKINGTON 
to any U.S. LICENSEE while PILKINGTON owned 50% or more of that U.S. 
LICENSEE.
    Q. ``U.S. Licensee'' means any LICENSEE that was or is incorporated 
in the United States or had or has its principal place of business in 
the United States, but shall not include any subsidiaries, affiliates 
or parents of any such LICENSEE nor any person while it is a 
subsidiary, affiliate or parent of any defendant. For purposes of this 
definition, an ``affiliate'' is an entity in which a person has an 
equity interest, directly or indirectly, of 50% or less; a 
``subsidiary'' is an entity in which a person has an equity interest, 
directly or indirectly, of more than 50%; a ``parent'' is an entity 
that has, directly or indirectly, more than 50% of the equity interest 
of another entity.
    R. ``U.S. Non-Licensee'' means any NON-LICENSEE that is domiciled 
or incorporated in the United States and that has its principal place 
of business in the United States.

III

Applicability

    This Final Judgment applies to defendants and to each of their 
officers, directors, agents, employees, subsidiaries, successors and 
assigns; and to all other persons in active concert or participation 
with any of them who shall have received actual notice of this Final 
Judgment by personal service or otherwise.

IV

Injunction

    Defendants are enjoined and prohibited as follows:
A. U.S. Licensees
    1. Except as provided in subparagraph A.4. hereof, no defendant 
shall enter into, maintain, enforce or claim any right under any 
AGREEMENT to the extent such AGREEMENT requires, or purports to 
require, any U.S. LICENSEE to pay FEES, observe LIMITATIONS, or 
maintain CONFIDENTIALITY (subject to subparagraph A.3.) with respect to 
the use or sublicensing of any SUBJECT FLOAT TECHNOLOGY.
    2. Except as provided in subparagraph A.4. hereof, no defendant 
shall assert against any U.S. LICENSEE any proprietary FLOAT TECHNOLOGY 
know-how rights (including any claim of CONFIDENTIALITY, subject to 
subparagraph A.3.) that it may have or claim with respect to any:
    (a) Subject Float Technology; or
    (b) FLOAT TECHNOLOGY not disclosed directly to that U.S. LICENSEE 
but otherwise in the possession of that U.S. LICENSEE unless for each 
item or combination of items thereof
    (i) it has a good faith argument that such item, or combination of 
items, is a trade secret under applicable law, and
    (ii) it has a good faith argument that it has been acquired in 
breach of CONFIDENTIALITY or otherwise unlawfully.
    3. Defendants may assert against U.S. LICENSEES a claim of breach 
of CONFIDENTIALITY in respect of SUBJECT FLOAT TECHNOLOGY, but only if 
the claim is made as to that which is a trade secret under applicable 
law and is either:
    (a) Based upon a U.S. LICENSEE's failure to make lawful and 
commercially reasonable efforts to preserve the CONFIDENTIALITY of 
SUBJECT FLOAT TECHNOLOGY; or
    (b) Based upon a U.S. LICENSEE'S failure to include in any 
AGREEMENT transferring FLOAT TECHNOLOGY a lawful and commercially 
reasonable provision requiring the transferee to maintain the 
CONFIDENTIALITY of the transferred FLOAT TECHNOLOGY.
    4. The provisions of subparagraphs A.1. and A.2. hereof shall not 
preclude in any way defendants from pursuing fully any claims for an 
account of profits, damages or any other monetary relief based on 
conduct occurring before the date of the STIPULATION in any proceedings 
instituted before that date.
B. U.S. Non-Licensees
    1. No defendant shall enter into or enforce any AGREEMENT with any 
employee, contractor, supplier, consultant, or the like who is a U.S. 
NON-LICENSEE that contains any obligation of CONFIDENTIALITY to or for 
the benefit directly or indirectly of PILKINGTON with respect to FLOAT 
TECHNOLOGY, or any covenant to refrain from competing or engaging in 
any line of business relative to FLOAT TECHNOLOGY, that is of longer 
duration or greater scope than permitted under applicable law, provided 
that plaintiff agrees that defendants shall not be in contempt of this 
Final Judgment if they enter into or seek to enforce any such AGREEMENT 
based on a good faith argument that such AGREEMENT is permitted by 
applicable law.
    2. No defendant shall assert against U.S. NON-LICENSEES (other than 
in respect of AGREEMENTS referred to in subparagraph B.1. above) any 
proprietary FLOAT TECHNOLOGY know-how rights (including any claim of 
CONFIDENTIALITY) that it may have or claim with respect to any FLOAT 
TECHNOLOGY disclosed by PILKINGTON to any U.S. LICENSEE, unless for 
each item or combination of items thereof:
    (a) Defendant has a good faith argument that such item, or 
combination of items, is a trade secret under applicable law;
    (b) Defendant has a good faith argument that such item, or 
combination of items, has been acquired in breach of CONFIDENTIALITY or 
otherwise unlawfully;
    (c) Defendant has, within fourteen (14) days after any such 
assertion:
    (i) Made a showing in writing to the Department of Justice, 
Antitrust Division in support of the arguments described in 
subparagraphs 2(a) and 2(b), above;
    (ii) Identified, enumerated, and described such item or combination 
of items (in sufficient detail and with sufficient clarity to 
distinguish them from information not a trade secret under applicable 
law) on a list submitted to the Antitrust Division and to the U.S. NON-
LICENSEE against whom such right is asserted; and
    (d) Such U.S. NON-LICENSEE is unwilling to make lawful and 
commercially reasonable efforts to maintain the CONFIDENTIALITY of any 
such item or combination of items for which it has received actual 
notice of a defendant's claim of proprietary rights therein pursuant to 
subparagraph 2(c)(ii), above, and for which a defendant has made the 
requisite showing pursuant to subparagraph 2(c)(i), above.
C. Agreements with Foreign Licensees
    No defendant shall enter into, maintain, enforce or claim any right 
under any AGREEMENT to the extent such AGREEMENT contains any 
LIMITATIONS on a FOREIGN LICENSEE regarding its use or sublicensing of 
any FLOAT TECHNOLOGY that would have the effect of prohibiting or 
limiting the manufacture of FLOAT GLASS in NORTH AMERICA, provided that 
defendants may charge commercially reasonable and non-discriminatory 
FEES for the use or sublicensing of FLOAT TECHNOLOGY other than that 
disclosed by PILKINGTON to a U.S. LICENSEE; and provided further that a 
defendant may enforce CONFIDENTIALITY against any FOREIGN LICENSEE for 
use of FLOAT TECHNOLOGY, but, with respect to FLOAT TECHNOLOGY 
disclosed by PILKINGTON to a U.S. LICENSEE, only to the extent that the 
defendant has a good faith argument that the items or combination of 
items of such FLOAT TECHNOLOGY involved are trade secrets under 
applicable law.
D. Exports to the United States
    No defendant shall, with the intent of restraining or limiting the 
amount of exports of FLOAT GLASS to the United States:
    1. assert any proprietary FLOAT TECHNOLOGY know-how rights with 
respect to SUBJECT FLOAT TECHNOLOGY or
    2. enter into, maintain, enforce or claim any right under any 
AGREEMENT with any LICENSEE.
E. Price of Float Technology
    No defendant shall enter into, maintain or enforce any AGREEMENT 
that fixes, maintains or stabilizes the price to be charged for the use 
of any FLOAT TECHNOLOGY in the United States.
F. Representations
    With respect to all FLOAT TECHNOLOGY disclosed by PILKINGTON to any 
U.S. LICENSEE, no defendant shall represent to any person anywhere in 
the world that the person will or may incur liability to any defendant 
as a result of that person using, or contracting for the use of, or 
financing, facilitating, or promoting another person's use of such 
FLOAT TECHNOLOGY insofar as the same is acquired directly from any U.S. 
LICENSEE or any U.S. NON-LICENSEE provided that nothing shall limit or 
restrict any defendant from representing, claiming or enforcing any 
right to which either defendant may now or hereafter be entitled other 
than as is expressly enjoined by this Final Judgment.
G. Public Domain
    1. Within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Final Judgment, 
PILKINGTON shall identify the FLOAT TECHNOLOGY found to be public 
knowledge in the FINAL AWARD to the Department of Justice, Antitrust 
Division; to all U.S. LICENSEES; and to all U.S. NON-LICENSEES who 
shall request the same in writing.
    2. In the event that SUBJECT FLOAT TECHNOLOGY is: (a) Formally 
acknowledged in writing by PILKINGTON to be in the public domain, or 
(b) is determined to be in the public domain in a final award in any 
arbitration proceedings to which PILKINGTON is a party or (c) is held 
to be in the public domain in any proceedings to which PILKINGTON is a 
party conducted in a court of competent jurisdiction and provided that 
any such determination or holding is an essential relevant part of a 
final non-appealable decision or judgment binding upon PILKINGTON, then 
within sixty (60) days of such acknowledgment, award for judgment 
PILKINGTON shall send notice thereof identifying such public domain 
FLOAT TECHNOLOGY to the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division; to 
all U.S. LICENSEES; and to all U.S. NON-LICENSEES who previously made a 
request pursuant to subparagraph G.1. above.
H. Patents
    Nothing in this Paragraph IV shall be construed to apply to any 
lawful use of any patent or any patent right to which defendants may 
now or hereafter be entitled.
I. Construction
    Nothing in this Paragraph IV shall be considered by implication 
either to permit or to prohibit any agreements, conduct or practices 
not expressly covered by this Final Judgment. Nothing in this Paragraph 
IV shall be construed as permission to engage in conduct that is not 
lawful, or as legalizing otherwise unlawful conduct nor as a 
determination that any conduct affected or subject to this Paragraph IV 
is unlawful. The legality or illegality of any conduct not expressly 
covered by this Final Judgment is left unaffected by the entry of this 
Final Judgment.
J. Records
    During the term of this Final Judgment defendants shall maintain a 
file in the United States at the offices of defendant Pilkington 
Holdings Inc. containing the documents created or received after the 
date of this Final Judgment and identified further in this paragraph 
and during the term of this Final Judgment shall produce the same to 
the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division within sixty (60) days of 
a written request given to defendants at the principal office of 
Pilkington Holdings Inc., subject to any lawful privilege:
    1. A copy of each LICENSE AGREEMENT entered into or amended;
    2. A copy of each complaint (or its equivalent) filed in any 
proceeding, and each other document in which defendants asserted 
against any U.S. LICENSEE or U.S. NON-LICENSEE any proprietary FLOAT 
TECHNOLOGY know-how rights (including any claim of CONFIDENTIALITY);
    3. A copy of each document constituting or containing a 
determination in any proceeding, or any acknowledgement by defendants 
that any item or combination of items of FLOAT TECHNOLOGY is, or has 
become, publicly known.
    4. A copy of each document constituting or containing: (a) Any 
request for the communication of FLOAT TECHNOLOGY or a grant of rights 
to FLOAT TECHNOLOGY for the manufacture of FLOAT GLASS or sublicensing 
from any U.S. LICENSEE or U.S. NON-LICENSEE, and (b) defendant's 
response to any such request.

V

Notification

    Within sixty (60) days after the entry of this Final Judgment, 
defendants shall either: (a) Deliver by certified or registered mail to 
each person to whom it has granted a LICENSE, or with whom it has 
entered into any confidentiality agreement pertaining to FLOAT GLASS, 
including without limitation equipment fabricators, suppliers, and 
employees a copy of this Final Judgment and the accompanying 
Competitive Impact Statement; or (b) cause to be published in one or 
more journals a copy of this Final Judgment or a summary of this Final 
Judgment, which journals and summary shall be agreed upon by plaintiff 
and defendants, and defendants shall promptly certify in writing to 
plaintiff the fact of their compliance with this provision.

VI

Reporting

    A. To determine or secure compliance with this Final Judgment, duly 
authorized representatives of the plaintiff shall, upon written request 
of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, 
on reasonable notice given to defendants at their principal office, 
subject to any lawful privilege, be permitted:
    1. Access during normal office hours to inspect and copy all books, 
ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda and other documents and 
records in the possession, custody, or control of defendants, which may 
have counsel present, relating to any matters contained in this Final 
Judgment. PILKINGTON may elect, with respect to any such materials as 
may be located outside the United States of America at the time it 
receives such notice, to provide such access at a location within the 
United States that is reasonably acceptable to the duly authorized 
representative in lieu of providing access at the situs of the 
materials.
    2. Subject to the reasonable convenience of defendants and without 
restraint or interference from it, to interview officers, employees, or 
agents of defendants, who may have counsel present, regarding any 
matters contained in the Final Judgment. PILKINGTON may elect to make 
available for such interviews those of its officers, employees, or 
agents whose regular work station is outside the United States of 
America at a location within the United States that is reasonably 
acceptable to the duly authorized representative.
    B. Upon written request of the Assistant Attorney General in charge 
of the Antitrust Division, on reasonable notice given to defendants at 
their principal office, subject to any lawful privilege, defendant 
shall submit such written reports, under oath if requested, with 
respect to any matters contained in this Final Judgment.
    C. No information or documents obtained by the means provided by 
this Section VI shall be divulged by the plaintiff to any person other 
than a duly authorized representative of the Executive Branch of the 
United States government, except in the course of legal proceedings to 
which the United States is a party, or for the purpose of securing 
compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
    D. If at the time information or documents are furnished by 
defendant to plaintiff, defendant represents and identifies in writing 
the material in any such information or document to which a claim of 
protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure, and defendant marks each pertinent page of such 
material ``Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(7) of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,'' then 10 days' notice shall be given 
by plaintiff to defendant prior to divulging such material in any legal 
proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding) which defendant is not 
a party.

VII

Further Elements of Judgment

    A. This Final Judgment shall expire on the tenth anniversary of its 
entry.
    B. Jurisdiction is retained by this Court over this action and the 
parties thereto for the purpose of enabling any of the parties thereto 
to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as 
may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final 
Judgment, to modify or terminate any of its provisions, to enforce 
compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.

VIII

Public Interest

    Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.

Entered:____________---------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

United States District Court for the District of Arizona

    United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Pilkington plc and 
Pilkington Holdings Inc., Defendants. Civil Action No. 94-345, 
Filed: May 25, 1994, Judge Browning.

Competitive Impact Statement

    Pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties 
Act (15 U.S.C. 16(b)), the United States of America hereby files this 
Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment 
submitted for entry against Pilkington plc (``Pilkington'') and 
Pilkington Holdings Inc., Pilkington's indirectly, wholly-owned 
American subsidiary, in this civil antitrust action.

I

Nature and Purpose of the Proceeding

A. The Complaint
    The government filed this civil antitrust suit on May 25, 1994, 
alleging that defendants violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act 
by enforcing and maintaining agreements and understandings that 
unreasonably restrain interstate and foreign trade in the construction 
and operation of float glass plants and in float glass process 
technology, and by monopolizing the world market for the design and 
construction of float glass plants. Specifically, the Complaint alleges 
that, without sufficiently valuable intellectual property rights and 
through a network of bilateral patent and know-how license agreements 
and various understandings with most other float glass manufacturers in 
the world, defendants:
    (a) Allocated and divided territories for, and limited the use of, 
float glass technology worldwide;
    (b) Interpreted and enforced the territorial and use restrictions 
in the license agreements so that their combined effect prevented 
competitors from using or developing competing float glass technology;
    (c) Required competitors to prove that all of the licensed 
technology had become publicly known before being relieved of the 
territorial and use restrictions;
    (d) Imposed and enforced restrictions on competitors' ability to 
sublicense float glass technology;
    (e) Imposed and enforced reporting and grant-back provisions in the 
license agreements;
    (f) Imposed and enforced restrictions on exports of glass by 
licensees from and to the United States; and
    (g) Continued enforcement of the territorial, use, and sublicense 
restrictions indefinitely, even after no further licensing royalties 
were payable and the licensed patents had expired.
    The Complaint also alleges that Pilkington has monopolized the 
world market for the design and construction of float glass plants 
through license agreements that impose unreasonable restrictions on 
licensees and by other predatory and exclusionary conduct. Finally, the 
Complaint alleges that the conduct described above has had and 
continues to have direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable 
adverse effects on U.S. export trade and commerce in providing services 
and related equipment and materials for the design and construction of 
float glass plants outside the United States.
    The prayer for relief seeks: (1) A declaration that the provisions 
in Pilkington's license agreements with float glass manufacturers that 
have the purpose or effect of limiting or restricting: (a) The 
territory in which a manufacturer may make or sell float glass, or (b) 
the use of float glass technology Pilkington originally disclosed to 
that manufacturer, or derived therefrom, are illegal and unenforceable; 
(2) an injunction against defendants' enforcing any such provisions; 
(3) an injunction against defendants' (a) interfering with the efforts 
of any person (i) in this country to provide or perform services for 
the design or construction of float glass plants anywhere in the world, 
or (ii) anywhere in the world to provide or perform services for the 
design or construction of float glass plants in the United States 
(including representing that such services would violate or infringe 
defendants' intellectual property rights, (b) interfering with the 
design, construction, or operation of any such plant or the sale or 
shipment of glass from those plants, or (c) monopolizing or attempting 
to monopolize the market for the design and construction of float glass 
plants; and (4) costs.
B. The Technology Market Involved
    Flat glass includes glass formed in a flat shape or bent or curved 
for further fabrication and is used principally for windows in 
dwellings and commercial buildings, automobile windshields and other 
glass parts, architectural products, and mirrors. Almost all flat glass 
currently sold worldwide is made by the ``float'' process, which 
involves floating molten glass on the surface of a bath of molten 
metal, usually tin, which is sealed with a protective atmosphere. In a 
continuous process, molten glass is delivered to one end of the tin 
bath and is removed at the opposite end as a continuous ribbon of flat 
glass after cooling until it is rigid enough to retain its shape during 
removal.
    Commercial float glass manufacture requires relatively large-scale, 
single-purpose plants that are not efficiently convertible to other 
uses; and other manufacturing facilities are not efficiently 
convertible to float glass production. The cost of designing and 
constructing a typically-sized float glass plant, including equipment, 
materials, and construction labor, is in the range of $100 to $150 
million. During the years 1984-91, 55 new float plants were designed, 
built, and placed in service worldwide; of those, nine are in North 
America, including seven in the United States.
    Between now and the end of the century, 30 to 50 new float glass 
plants are planned or projected worldwide, amounting to expenditures of 
as much as $5 billion. Many are expected to be built in developing 
countries, where contracts are likely to be awarded to outside bidders 
for plant design, engineering, construction, and construction 
supervision services. Such services often include the specifying, 
ordering, or procuring of process equipment and materials used in such 
plants.
    Persons in the United States would compete, if not restrained, for 
the award of contracts to provide float glass design and construction 
services. To the extent such persons successfully compete for contracts 
to design and construct float glass plants to be built outside the 
United States, the resulting U.S. export trade or commerce would 
generate substantial domestic economic activity, including substantial 
opportunities for domestic providers of engineering and design 
services, equipment fabricators, and materials suppliers. It is 
estimated that, when a U.S. firm designs and supervises construction of 
a foreign plant costing roughly $100 million, approximately $35 to $50 
million of that total eventually flows into the United States' economy 
in orders for domestic materials, equipment, and services. It is 
further estimated that, if not restrained, U.S. exporters of float 
glass technology may be expected to obtain between 10 percent and 50 
percent of the 30 to 50 new plants planned or projected over the next 
several years. Thus, potential U.S. export sales for contractors, 
fabricators, and suppliers could amount to $500 million to $2.5 
billion.

II

The Practices and Events Giving Rise to the Alleged Sherman Act 
Violations

A. Licensing Scheme
1. Background
    Virtually all commercial flat glass was produced either by the old 
sheet glass process or the old plate glass process until 1962. In the 
late 1950s, Pilkington developed the first commercially successful 
float process for making flat glass, which eventually replaced both 
plate and sheet processes.\1\ Pilkington obtained hundreds of patents 
worldwide covering its version of the float process and developed a 
considerable body of related know-how.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Pilkington's float process substantially reduced capital and 
operating costs, when compared with the plate process, by 
eliminating the need for grinding and polishing, but was not at 
first cost competitive with the sheet process. By 1970, float glass 
had almost completely replaced plate glass and, because of quality 
improvements and cost reductions, was competitive with sheet glass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in 1962, Pilkington entered into patent and know-how 
license agreements with all its principal competitors. Now, over 90% of 
flat glass worldwide is manufactured under a Pilkington license 
agreement. Eight licenses were granted in the United States to: AFG 
Industries, Inc. (``AFG''); Combustion Engineering, Inc. (now AFG); 
Ford Motor Co. (``Ford''); Fourco Glass Co. (also now AFG); Guardian 
Industries Corp. (``Guardian''); Pennsylvania Float Glass, Inc. (now 
Guardian); PPG Industries, Inc. (``PPG''); and Libbey-Owens-Ford Co. 
(``LOF'') (now owned 80% by Pilkington and 20% by Nippon Sheet Glass 
Co. Ltd.).
2. The Agreements
    The Pilkington float license agreements typically: (a) Provided for 
Pilkington to disclose all ``float process''\2\ know-how it owned or 
controlled at the time, and (b) granted non-exclusive licenses under 
(i) patents and patent applications of a specified country or 
countries, (ii) the ``float process'' know-how to be disclosed to the 
licensee under the agreement, and (iii) all patented and unpatented 
``float process'' improvements Pilkington owned, controlled, or 
developed within a certain time period. Most licenses did not grant the 
right to sublicense. Also, improvement exchange provisions of the 
agreements required the licensee to grant-back to Pilkington (i.e., 
disclose and license) all patented and unpatented ``float process'' 
improvements the licensee owned, controlled, or discovered during the 
exchange period. The license agreements required both lump-sum payments 
and continuous royalties, and virtually all of them required that any 
disputes be settled by arbitration in London under the law of England.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\The license agreements very broadly defined ``float 
processes'' as ``all processes * * * used for * * * production of 
flat glass * * * with the aid of a bath of molten material * * * 
with which the glass is in contact at any stage during its 
production,'' but exclusing everything (i) prior to delivery of the 
glass to the bath, and (ii) after its emergence from the lehr (where 
it undergoes controlled cooling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agreements imposed territorial and other use limitations by, in 
effect, ``authorizing'' each licensee to practice the licensed patents 
and use the licensed know-how only in a specified country or countries 
(usually the licensee's own domestic market), and only to make and sell 
flat glass.\3\ The license agreements also imposed restraints on 
exports of glass from the specified territories. Those restraints 
applied to some U.S. licensees as well as to certain foreign licensees 
exporting to the United States. Export waivers have been granted by 
Pilkington in some cases, but were often limited as to time, location, 
and output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\While most agreements contained no express, contractual 
prohibitions against manufacturing in any particular country outside 
the specified, licensed countries, the grants are all limited 
licenses, ``authorizing'' manufacture of float glass only in the 
specified countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the agreements imposed confidentiality and nondisclosure 
obligations on the licensees for all the know-how disclosed, unless and 
until the information or know-how becomes public knowledge. In 
practice, Pilkington placed the burden on the licensee to make any 
showing of public knowledge.
    Today, virtually all of the original float license agreements 
themselves, as well as their improvement exchange and disclosure 
requirements, have terminated; the royalty obligations thereunder have 
become fully paid up; Pilkington's principal float glass patents have 
expired; and a substantial portion of its related know-how has become 
publicly known. Yet, the territorial and use restrictions, the 
confidentiality and nondisclosure obligations, the prohibition on 
sublicensing, and the arbitration clause and choice of law provision 
remain in full force and effect insofar as they apply to both licensed 
original know-how and unpatented improvements, most of which the 
world's flat glass producers have been using for decades.
    As a result of the continuing restrictions in the agreements, 
existing licensees, including those in the United States, cannot design 
and build new float plants, or sublicense independent third parties to 
do so, outside their licensed ``territories'' without Pilkington's 
permission. Moreover, innovations in designs and technology that 
improve float process efficiency and float glass quality are important 
advantages in competing for contracts to design and construct (or 
supervise construction of) float glass plants; thus, geographically 
limiting the opportunities for economic exploitation of such 
innovations not only reduces the effectiveness of such competition but 
also reduces the incentives for innovation.
    The adverse impact of the continuing license restrictions is 
substantial. Since Pilkington has no intellectual property rights of 
substantial value, the restraints are neither ancillary nor reasonably 
necessary to any legitimate purpose or transaction, and are, therefore, 
unreasonable restraints on trade within the meaning of Section 1 of the 
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.
3. Current Status of Licenses
    There are over 60 Pilkington float licenses agreements. Most of 
therm contain no authorization for the licensee to manufacture or 
sublicense outside its original territory now or at any time in the 
future.
    A small number of agreements provide that ``the territorial and 
other limitations on use cease to apply'' after a period of time 
(usually 30 years after commencement of royalty payments but, in any 
case, not before the agreement terminates and the licenses granted 
thereunder become paid up). Such licenses are held by just three 
companies (other than Pilkington and its subsidiaries or affiliates). 
In the absence of the stipulated Final Judgment, after 1996, only these 
three companies will have worldwide rights to manufacture on their own 
and to sublicense more than 50 percent-owned subsidiaries without any 
additional royalty or lump-sum payment to Pilkington.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\But absent the stipulated Judgment, even those rights will 
not allow these three companies to compete effectively in most 
developing countries, where the future market is for new float 
plants, because of ownership limitations there that require, as a 
legal or practical matter, a domestic company to have majority 
ownership of new manufacturing ventures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, in the absence of the stipulated Final Judgment, the vast 
majority of current and former Pilkington licensees (who together make 
up the bulk of those competitors capable of providing float glass plant 
design and construction services) continue to be restrained from either 
manufacturing glass or sublicensing (selling) glass technology outside 
their original territories.
B. Litigation
    Pilkington has routinely used litigation, and threats of 
litigation, to enforce its anticompetitive license restrictions. On 
several occasions, Pilkington has actually sued or brought arbitration 
proceedings against its American float glass licensees. In 1983, 
Pilkington sued its U.S. licensee, Guardian Industries, alleging that 
Guardian had improperly used and disclosed Pilkington's proprietary 
know-how in building a float glass plant in Luxembourg. After an 
adverse preliminary ruling by the court, Pilkington agreed to settle 
its claims on terms favorable to Guardian, permitting Guardian to 
construct float glass plants outside its previously-prescribed 
territory in return for Guardian's agreement to preserve the 
confidentiality of Pilkington's float technology.
    Pilkington more successfully asserted claims against PPG in 1978 
and again in 1985. In a 1985 arbitration concluded in 1992, Pilkington 
was able to enforce its 1962 license agreement with PPG and to recover 
damages from PPG stemming from PPG's construction of a float glass 
plant in China in the early 1980s. The arbitrators determined that, 
while much of Pilkington's alleged secret know-how was publicly known 
by 1985, PPG had failed to prove that 45 specific items were publicly 
known. The arbitrators did not consider the question of whether any of 
those items were valid trade secrets.
    Also in the early 1980's Pilkington sued U.S. licensee AFG over 
unpaid royalties relating to AFG's operation of float glass plants 
constructed using AFG's own technology. The case was settled in 1985, 
resulting in substantial limitations on AFG's ability to use and sell 
the disputed technology.
C. Other Exclusionary Conduct
    The evidence demonstrates that Pilkington acted to restrict 
competition and control output. Pilkington licensed its principal 
competitors, which had the effect of minimizing the likelihood of their 
developing competing float glass technologies. At the same time, 
Pilkington turned down requests for float glass licenses from persons 
who were not already flat glass producers. The territories to which 
each licensee was limited by its float license agreement generally 
corresponded to the territories in which it operated prior to entering 
into that agreement. Thus, Pilkington's network of bilateral patent and 
know-how licenses, containing territorial and other use limitations, as 
well as confidentiality obligations, provided a framework for 
Pilkington to control the worldwide market for float glass plant design 
and construction services. The evidence also indicates Pilkington's 
effort to coordinate activities of certain of its licensees, and 
reflects a shared or common interest among certain licensees to limit 
entry by competing technologies.
    Pilkington exercised its right to grant or deny licenses not only 
in its own self-interest to avoid direct competition, but also in ways 
designed to benefit licensees in their territories. When Pilkington did 
grant float licenses, it frequently did so only to firms controlled by 
an existing licensee or to a joint venture of existing licensees.
    One of Pilkington's goals in deciding whether to license, and in 
imposing territorial/export restraints when it did, was to control 
price, capacity, and output of flat glass. Pilkington sometimes reached 
separate understandings with licensees who exceeded, or threatened to 
exceed, the territorial or other limitations imposed by their licenses. 
By discouraging or challenging the construction of new float plants 
outside any licensee's original, assigned territory, Pilkington sought 
to maintain control over glass output and the sale or disclosure of 
float technology, for its own benefit, as well as that of the other 
licensees. Pilkington also tried to dissuade flat glass distributors 
and suppliers of materials and equipment used in building float plants 
from dealing with non-licensees and threatened reprisals if they did.
    Pilkington reserved for itself certain markets, and turned down 
requests for licenses in those markets, including requests from 
existing float licensees, for the two-fold purpose of exploiting those 
markets itself, and controlling exports from those markets to other 
parts of the world. Pilkington attempted to achieve this goal by 
coordinating the shipment of glass to specific customers through 
certain licensees and indirectly, its U.S. subsidiary LOF.

III

Explanation of the Proposed Final Judgment and Its Anticipated Effect 
on Competition

    The United States and the defendants have stipulated that the Court 
may enter the proposed Final Judgment at any time after compliance with 
the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h). Under 
the provisions of section 2(e) of the Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(e), the proposed Final Judgment may not be 
entered unless the Court finds entry is in the public interest. Section 
VIII of the proposed Final Judgment sets forth such a finding.
    The proposed Final Judgment provides for affirmative and injunctive 
relief, which is expected to eliminate any residual anticompetitive 
effects of the restrictive license agreements and other conduct 
challenged by the Complaint. Specifically, consistent with the United 
States' antitrust jurisdiction under the Foreign Trade Antitrust 
Improvements Act of 1982, 15 U.S.C. 6a, the Final Judgment would 
eliminate all territorial and use limitations Pilkington imposed on its 
U.S. licensees and allow them to manufacture on their own or sublicense 
any third party to do so anywhere in the world, free of charge, using 
the float technology disclosed and licensed to those licensees. Such 
manufacturing and sublicensing rights would be subject only to limited 
confidentiality obligations imposed under certain narrow and specific 
conditions.
    The Judgment also would provide, in effect, a similar ``safe 
harbor'' for any other American individual or firm who is not a 
Pilkington float glass licensee to use any float technology in its 
possession without liability to Pilkington. Further, the Judgment would 
enjoin certain conduct having the purpose or effect of restricting 
exports of float glass to the United States or limiting the use of 
float technology or manufacture of float glass in North America. 
Finally, the Judgment would enjoin the defendants from making certain 
adverse representations about U.S. licensees or non-licensees and would 
require the defendants to disclose to those American entities the 
results of any adjudication of Pilkington's alleged trade secrets.
A. Section IV.A.: U.S. Licensees
    The injunctive provisions of this subsection apply to Pilkington's 
U.S. float glass licensees, defined as any person or entity 
incorporated or having its principal place of business in the United 
States and having entered into any agreement with Pilkington prior to 
the stipulation date for the licensing of or the right to use float 
glass technology. It does not apply to any subsidiary (at least 50 
percent owned), affiliate (less than 50 percent owned), or parent of 
any U.S. licensee,\5\ or to any person while it is a subsidiary, 
affiliate, or parent of any defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\This exclusion is designed to prevent a foreign entity from 
claiming the benefits of specific provisions of the proposed Final 
Judgment designed for U.S. entities simply by acquiring, being 
acquired by, or becoming affiliated with any American entity. United 
States and foreign entities are treated differently under the 
proposed Judgment (see Section IV.C.) because the jurisdictional 
reach of the U.S. antitrust laws is limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, subject to a narrow exception and certain conditions 
noted below, subsection IV.A.1. would prohibit defendants from entering 
into, maintaining, enforcing, or claiming any right under any agreement 
or understanding that restrains in any way a U.S. licensee from using 
or sublicensing anywhere in the world the float glass technology 
Pilkington disclosed and licensed to it, or that requires such licensee 
to pay royalties or lump sum or line fees for such use or sublicensing. 
Also, subject to the same exception and conditions, subsection IV.A.2. 
would prohibit defendants from asserting against a U.S. licensee any 
alleged proprietary know-how rights in the same float technology 
disclosed and licensed to that licensee.
    The exception and conditions mentioned above are contained in 
subsections IV.A.3. and IV.A.4. Subsection IV.A.3. provides that 
defendants may assert a breach of confidentiality claim against a U.S. 
licensee concerning licensed technology, only if the claim (i) pertains 
to a trade secret under applicable law, and (ii) is based on the U.S. 
licensee's failure either to make lawful and commercially reasonable 
efforts itself to maintain confidentiality or to require by contract 
anyone to whom it transfers such technology to do so. Subsection 
IV.A.4. specifically preserves whatever claim a defendant may have for 
an account of profits, damages, or any other monetary relief asserted 
in any proceedings begun before the stipulation date and based on 
conduct occurring before that date. However, this exception does not 
allow defendants to bring future actions for monetary relief, whether 
or not based on prior conduct.
    Finally, subsection IV.A.2., again subject to the same exception 
and conditions described above, also prohibits defendants from 
asserting against a U.S. licensee any alleged proprietary know-how 
rights in float technology acquired from any source other than 
Pilkington, unless defendant have a good faith argument that each item, 
or combination of items, of such technology: (i) Is a trade secret 
under applicable law, and (ii) has been acquired in breach of 
confidentiality or otherwise unlawfully.
B. Section IV.B.: U.S. Non-Licensees
    The injunctive provisions of this subsection apply to any person or 
entity domiciled or incorporated in the United States and having its 
principal place of business here, but who has not entered into a float 
glass license agreement with Pilkington. Such persons or entities fall 
into two general categories: (i) Non-licensees who are nevertheless 
under some contractual confidentiality or noncompete obligation for 
Pilkington's benefit (e.g., employees, contractors, suppliers, 
consultants, etc.), and (ii) persons who are not under any such 
obligation.
    As to the first category, subsection IV.B.1. of the proposed 
Judgment prohibits defendants from entering into or enforcing any 
agreement containing such a confidentiality obligation or covenant not 
to compete that is longer in duration or greater in scope than 
permitted under applicable law. That subsection, however, provides that 
entering into or enforcing such an agreement will not constitute 
contempt of the Judgment if defendants have a good faith argument that 
it is permitted by applicable law.
    Subsection IV.B.2. of the proposed Final Judgment applies to all 
U.S. non-licensee competitors and potential entrants into the float 
glass technology market. It prohibits defendants from asserting against 
such a person alleged proprietary know-how rights in float glass 
technology disclosed and licensed by Pilkington to any U.S. licensee, 
unless each of several specific conditions are met. First, defendants 
must have a good faith argument that each item, or combination of 
items, of such technology asserted (i) is a trade secret under 
applicable law, and (ii) has been acquired in breach of confidentiality 
or otherwise unlawfully. Second, within 14 days after any such 
assertion, defendants must (i) make a written showing to the Department 
of Justice supporting both arguments referred to above, and (ii) 
enumerate and describe each such item or combination of items asserted, 
to distinguish them from information not a trade secret, on a list 
submitted to both the Department and the U.S. non-licensee against whom 
they are asserted. Finally, in order for Pilkington to assert a claim, 
such U.S. non-licensee must be unwilling to make lawful and 
commercially reasonable efforts to maintain the confidentiality of 
those items or combination of items for which it has received actual 
notice of defendants' claim, and for which they have made the requisite 
showing.
C. Section IV.C.: Foreign Licensees
    Subject to two conditions noted below, subsection IV.C. of the 
proposed Judgment prohibits defendants from entering into, maintaining, 
enforcing, or claiming a right under any agreement or understanding 
that in any way restrains a foreign float glass licensee from using or 
sublicensing float glass technology in North America. Further, 
defendants may not charge any fees for the use or sublicensing in North 
America of float glass technology disclosed by Pilkington to any U.S. 
licensee, and may not enforce any confidentiality claims for the use or 
sublicensing of such technology, unless defendants have a good faith 
argument that each item or combination of items of such technology 
involved is a trade secret. However, defendants may enforce 
confidentiality claims against foreign licensees' use or sublicensing 
in North America of float glass technology not disclosed to any U.S. 
licensee, and may charge them commercially reasonable and non-
discriminatory fees for the use of such technology.
D. Other Provisions
    Subsection IV.D. of the proposed Judgment prohibits defendants from 
asserting any proprietary know-how rights or enforcing any agreements 
with the intent of restraining or limiting the amount of exports of 
float glass to the U.S. Subsection IV.E. prohibits defendants from 
entering into, maintaining, or enforcing any agreement that fixes, 
maintains, or stabilizes prices for the use of float glass technology 
in the U.S. Subsection IV.F. prohibits defendants for representing to 
any person anywhere in the world that the person's own use, or its 
financing, promoting, or facilitating another person's use, of float 
glass technology acquired directly from any U.S. licensee or U.S. non-
licensee would result in any liability to defendants.
    Subsection IV.G. requires defendants to identify to the Department, 
and to all U.S. licensees and all U.S. non-licensees who request it, 
the float glass technology found to be public knowledge in the 
arbitration proceedings concluded in August 1992 between Pilkington and 
PPG. This subsection requires a similar identification for any such 
technology disclosed and licensed to any U.S. licensee that Pilkington 
acknowledges in writing to be in the public domain or that is so held 
to be in any arbitration or court proceeding to which Pilkington is a 
party.
E. Effect on Competition
    The relief in the proposed Final Judgment is designed to ensure 
that: (1) Pilkington's U.S. licensees, principally PPG, Ford, Guardian, 
and AFG, will be free of the territorial and use restrictions in their 
20 to 30-year-old license agreements to compete for the design and 
construction of float glass plants abroad as well as in the U.S.; and 
(2) U.S. firms with the requisite expertise that never were Pilkington 
licensees but currently are attempting to enter the market will be free 
to do so without unreasonable restraint or interference. The effective 
removal of the license restrictions and the ``safe harbor'' provided by 
the proposed Final Judgment should encourage and facilitate others with 
the requisite expertise, including former employees of Pilkington and 
its licensees, to enter the market. It is expected that the combination 
of unrestrained existing manufacturers and new entrants will result in 
improved glass processes at lower prices.

IV

Remedies Available to Private Litigants

    Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any 
person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the 
antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times 
the damages suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 
Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither impair nor assist the 
bringing of such actions. Under the provisions of section 5(a) of the 
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the Judgment has no prima facie effect in 
any subsequent lawsuits that may be brought against the defendants in 
this matter.

V

Procedures Available for Modification of the Proposed Judgment

    As provided by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, any 
person believing that the proposed Final Judgment should be modified 
may submit written comments to Gail Kursh, Chief, Professions and 
Intellectual Property Section, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust 
Division, 555 4th Street, NW., room 9903, Washington, DC 20001, within 
the 60-day period provided by the Act. These comments, and the 
Department's responses, will be filed with the Court and published in 
the Federal Register. All comments will be given due consideration by 
the Department of Justice, which remains free, pursuant to a 
stipulation signed by the United States and defendants, to withdraw its 
consent to the proposed Judgment at any time prior to entry. Section I 
of the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains 
jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court 
for any order necessary or appropriate for modification, 
interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.

VI

Determinative Materials/Documents

    No materials or documents of the type described in Section 2(b) of 
the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16(b), were 
considered in formulating the proposed Final Judgment.

VII

Alternative to the Proposed Final Judgment

    The alternative to the proposed Final Judgment is a full trial on 
the merits. That alternative was rejected because the relief provided 
in the proposed Judgment will fully and effectively open the market to 
competition, as well as eliminate any residual effects of the alleged 
violations, and would produce immediate positive competitive impact; 
litigation would involve obvious risks as well as substantial costs to 
the United States; and preparing the case for trial, trying it, and 
disposing of appeals after trial might delay obtaining any relief for 
several years.

    Dated: May 25, 1994.

    Respectfully submitted,
K. Craig Wildfang,
Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division.
Kurt Shaffert,
Thomas H. Liddle,
Molly L. DeBusschere,
John B. Arnett, Sr.,
M. Lee Doane,
Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 555 4th 
Street, NW., Room 9903 JCB, Washington, D.C. 20001, 202/307-0467.

Certificate of Service

    The undersigned hereby certifies that on this    day of May, 1994 
he caused true and correct copies of the foregoing Complaint, 
Stipulation, Competitive Impact Statement, and Government's Motion 
Under Local Rule 1.2(e)(1) To Assign This Case With Above-Named Related 
Cases to be served by mail upon the following:

John H. Shenefield, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20036--Attorney for Defendants Pilkington plc, 
Pilkington Holdings Inc., and Libbey-Owens-Ford Co. in CIV 92-752-TUC-
WDB, CIV 93-552-TUC-WDB, and CIV 94-   TUC-WDB.
Thomas D. Barr, Esq., Cravath, Swayne & Moore, Worldwide Plaza, 825 
Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10019--Attorney for Plaintiff PPG 
Industries, Inc. in CIV 92-775-TUC-WDB.
Kenneth C. Anderson, Esq., 685 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017--
Attorney for Plaintiff International Technologies Consultants, Inc. in 
CIV-93-552-TUC-WDB.
Jeffrey Willis, Esq., Streich Lang, 33 N. Stone Avenue, Tucson, AZ 
85701--Attorney for Defendant Guardian Industries Corporation in CIV-
93-552-TUC-WDB.
Donald A. Wall, Esq., Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Two Renaissance 
Square, 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700, Phoenix, AZ 85004-4441--
Attorney for Defendant AFG Industries, Inc. in CIV-93-552-TUC-WDB.
K. Craig Wildfang,
Attorney for the United States.
[FR Doc. 94-14046 Filed 6-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M