This website uses cookies. By using the site you are agreeing to our Privacy Policy.


Fujifilm's views on Kodak's procedure under the section 301 petition

Fujifilm Releases More Evidence Refuting Kodak's Allegations on Price Fixing (Released from Fujifilm New York) 

The information in news releases is current at the time of the release. Note that the information shown here may not be latest information (termination of production or sales, changes to specifications or pricing, organizational or contact address changes, etc.), and may be subject to change without prior notice.

ELMSFORD, NY, March 28, 1996 -- Fuji Photo Film today filed with the office of the United States Trade Representative more factual evidence that not only refutes Kodak's allegations of price fixing in Japan, but also shows how Kodak -- contrary to its complaints -- has failed to compete on price even in the face of retailer demands.

"Having no real evidence that proves there is a price fixing conspiracy against its film, Kodak has been forced to grasp at straws and in the end has thrown together a couple dozen newspaper articles from over the past 25 years that are completely worthless and without merit," said Fujifilm lawyer Bill Barringer. "For the past 10 years, Kodak's official pricing policy has been to tell retailers to charge the same for Kodak as for Fujifilm. Even when the yen appreciated from 1985-1994 and Kodak had a golden opportunity to lower its prices without sacrificing revenue, Kodak chose to maximize its profits instead of passing the savings on to Japanese consumers.

"Kodak's problem in Japan is not price fixing," Barringer said. "Kodak's problem is that it has steadfastly refused to compete on price."

This submission represents the fourth in a four-part rebuttal to Kodak's November 6, 1995 submission. With this submission, Fujifilm has completely refuted Kodak's effort to salvage the credibility of its original submission, "Privatizing Protection."


Thomas H. Shay
Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.

Matt Wagner
Edelman Public Relations
(202) 326-1751