- 56 -
these machines placed". He was told that it would not be
difficult to place the machines because the recyclers imposed
little or no cost on end-users and because end-users would be
relieved of the financial burden of removing their plastic waste.
Maxfield understood that among the criteria required of end-users
was the willingness to "spend something--roughly $5,000 or
$6,000, if necessary, for the wiring of the machine."
Maxfield allegedly was told by Roberts and Wible in 1981,
and persons at PI in 1982, that the Sentinel EPE recycler was
unique and had a "tremendous head-start" over its competitors.
He claims that he understood that competing recyclers were not as
efficient as the Sentinel EPE recyclers and were not easily
placed with end-users. However, despite the purported
technological edge PI supposedly enjoyed over its competitors,
the offering memoranda warned that "PI does not intend to apply
for a patent for protection against appropriation and use [of its
trade secrets] by others." In addition, the Sentinel recyclers
were not unique. By 1981, several machines capable of densifying
low density materials such as polyethylene and polystyrene were
already on the market, including the Foremost Densilator,
Nelmor/Weiss Densification System (Regenolux), Buss-Condux
Plastcompactor, and Cumberland Granulator. In contrast to the
Sentinel EPE recycler, which was priced at $1,162,666, these
machines ranged in price from $20,000 to $200,000. See Provizer
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177.
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011