- 30 -
Grossman testified that, in 1982, equipment comparable to
the Sentinel EPS recycler was "widely available" and
significantly less expensive. Grossman examined a Sentinel EPS
recycler and a Japan Repro recycler and determined that the
mechanical construction of the two machines was "nearly
identical". Grossman further concluded that the recycled
polystyrene produced by these machines would also be identical.
Grossman added that because of the existence of functionally
equivalent machines, the Sentinel EPS recycler did not add new
technology to the field of recycling and could not therefore
justify the "one-of-a-kind" price tag that it carried.
Grossman did not specifically value the Sentinel EPS
Recycler. However, Grossman concluded that recycling equipment
that achieved the same result as the Sentinel EPS recycler sold
for about $50,000 during the relevant period.
Lindstrom based his valuation on a comparison between the
Sentinel EPS recycler and other commercially available machines.
Lindstrom estimated the market value of the Sentinel EPS recycler
at approximately $25,000 and estimated the manufacturing cost to
be in the range of $20,000.
Although petitioner declined to stipulate to the value of
the Sentinel EPS recyclers at issue in these cases, he failed to
present any evidence by way of expert testimony that rebutted
respondent's experts. Rather than present expert testimony,
petitioner, on cross-examination, challenged the findings of
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011