United States v. Bausch Lomb Optical Co Lens Co v. United States

Citation88 L.Ed. 1024,321 U.S. 707,64 S.Ct. 805
Decision Date10 April 1944
Docket NumberNos. 62,64,SOFT-LITE,s. 62
PartiesUNITED STATES v. BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL CO. et al.LENS CO., Inc., et al. v. UNITED STATES
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Hon. Wendell Berge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.

Mr. Bethuel M. Webster, of New York City, for Soft-Lite Lens Co. Inc., et al.

Mr. Whitney North Seymour, of New York City, for Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., et al.

Mr. Justice REED delivered the opinion of the Court.

The United States of America brought suit in the District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Bausch & Lomb Optical Company, a corporation, and the Soft-Lite Lens Company, Inc., and several of the chief officers of each, to restrain violations of the Sherman Act. Jurisdiction was conferred on the trial court by Section 4 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 4, 15 U.S.C.A. § 4 and upon this Court by Section 2 of the Act of February 11, 1903, 15 U.S.C. § 29, 15 U.S.C.A. § 29, and Judicial Code § 238, 28 U.S.C.A. § 345.

The complaint alleged that Bausch & Lomb and Soft-Lite and their officers contracted, combined and conspired to restrain trade in pink tinted lenses for eyeglasses, contrary to Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act.1 The allegations of the complaint were upheld by the trial court as to Soft-Lite and certain of its officers and dismissed as to Bausch & Lomb and its officers. United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., D.C., 45 F.Supp. 387.

The findings and opinion upon which the decree is molded show that Soft-Lite is the sole distributor of pink tinted lenses under the trade name 'Softlite.' Their plan of dealing follows. As no patents or secret processes are relied upon and as Soft-Lite limits itself to distribution only, the trade name, salesmanship and business experience of Soft-Lite are the qualities upon which it must primarily depend for its profits as a distributor. Soft-Lite buys its lenses from Bausch & Lomb. It sells to wholesalers, who in turn sell to retailers, who in turn sell to the public. Laying aside the variations in operating costs of wholesalers as compared with other wholesalers and of retailers as compared with other retailers, the opportunity for profits which can be divided between Soft-Lite, the wholesalers and the retailers, depends upon the difference between the price per lens that Soft-Lite pays Bausch & Lomb and the price the ultimate consumer pays the retailer. A wider spread between original purchase and final prices, which is maintained by artificial fixing of the prices demanded from the ultimate consumer, furnishes the links of the distribution chain more profit for division among themselves. This is true regardless of volume or price although these factors, of course, affect the aggregate profits available for division among the dealers who have a part in distribution. In its self-restricted field, Soft-Lite is successful. Roughly speaking, for the years 1938, 1939 and 1940 in the United States it has sold one-third of the pink tinted lenses for one-half of the gross receipts. Other manufacturers than Bausch & Lomb and other distributors than Soft-Lite do the remainder of the business.

Soft-Lite has arrangements with Bausch & Lomb for the purchase from them of lenses and blanks, with wholesalers of optical glass for the supply of this material to retail opticians, and in turn with these retailers for sales promotion. This is an integrated plant for the distribution of Soft-Lite's optical specialty, the pink tinted glass for easing eye strain. The plan of distribution for this commodity has developed over more than a quarter of a century of experience.

The arrangement with Bausch & Lomb had its origin in 1924. At that time this manufacturer of optical glass undertook to grind pink tinted lenses for Soft-Lite out of foreign glass imported by the latter, but very soon the two parties arranged for Bausch & Lomb to manufacture the glass as well. At the very beginning Bausch & Lomb agreed that any orders for pink tinted lenses which it might receive would be transmitted to Soft-Lite. A list of Soft-Lite customers, wholesale and retail, was furnished Bausch & Lomb. It appeared better to both seller and buyer to extend their arrangement by a contract in which Bausch & Lomb undertook to manufacture and sell pink tinted glass and lenses of Soft-Lite. To avoid the danger to Soft-Lite's business of indiscriminate selling by Bausch & Lomb of this pink glass specialty, Bausch & Lomb agreed that it would not sell pink tinted glass to lens manufacturers or pink tinted lenses to the optical trade. Soft-Lite buys exclusively from Bausch & Lomb.

The legal position of Bausch & Lomb and Soft-Lite is that of buyer and seller. Their relations through the years have been close, friendly and mutually satisfactory. Bausch & Lomb knows generally of the Soft-Lite distribution system, both as manufacturer for an active customer and as an owner of stock in wholesale optical goods companies, which subsidiary companies handled a large part of Soft-Lite's goods as jobbers. The officials of the two corporations carried on discussions and correspondence with respect to wholesale customers, retail outlets, prices, advertising policies, the standing of dealers, and general trade information. As to trade adjuncts for optical glass distribution such as cleaning cloths, lens cabinets, etc., Soft-Lite and Bausch & Lomb cooperated even to the ex- tent of agreeing to charge identical prices for such marketing aids.

In 1926, the arrangement between Bausch & Lomb and Soft-Lite was given a somewhat more formal character by a letter of the manufacturer advising its customer as follows:

'Since the very beginning of our relations with you, in connection with this transaction, it has been understood that we would safeguard your interests in every way and it has never been our intention to make competition for you by either marketing a tinted lens of our own or producing similar tinted glass for other manufacturers and it is our intention to abide by this understanding.

'On the other hand, however, it is difficult to foresee the progress of science in producing glass possessing better properties than is obtainable at the present time and in that event we feel certain that you would not in any way desire to impede our progress in that direction.

'We hope that this may be sufficient guarantee to you that we do not wish to do anything that would look like competition in connection with the Soft-Lite and we naturally expect that your efforts in the sale of same will be continued as at present for an indefinite period unless by consent of both parties concerned a different arrangement is agreed upon.

'Yours very truly,

'Bausch & Lomb Optical Company.

'P. S. Tinted lenses such as Crookes, Fieuzal, Smoke, Amber, etc. which we are now manufacturing it is understood will not come under the above arrangement.'

Minor variations in the plan have occurred since that letter. Bausch & Lomb patented a lens called 'Nokrome.' Soft-Lite was advised that when Soft-Lite glass was used in the Nokrome lens, Soft-Lite should have exclusive distribution. There were other patented lenses manufac- tured by Bausch & Lomb. Sometimes these lenses were ground from pink tinted glass and sometimes from other colors. Since these patented lenses were distributed by Bausch & Lomb under a licensee system, interference arose. Soft-Lite and Bausch & Lomb made mutually satisfactory adjustments so that their respective retailers might have some of the advantages of dealing in the Bausch & Lomb patented lenses ground out of Soft-Lite glass.

Again, Soft-Lite was released from its obligation to take second quality lenses and Bausch & Lomb agreed to sell them only in foreign countries where Soft-Lite had no offices and at prices acceptable to both Soft-Lite and Bausch & Lomb.

Reference has been made to the fact that Bausch & Lomb owned stock in optical wholesale companies which distributed Soft-Lite lenses and blanks. A stipulation stated that

'Bausch & Lomb, through its ownership of a majority of the outstanding voting stock of each said wholesale companies, has power to coordinate and control the sales and pricing policies of said wholesale companies.'

These subsidiaries were acquired by Bausch & Lomb 'at intervals subsequent to the original arrangement with Soft-Lite.' They now are the largest outlet for Soft-Lite Lenses, taking sixty per cent of Soft-Lite sales. They were substantial customers of Soft-Lite before they became affiliates of Bausch & Lomb. Soft-Lite is treated by its wholesale customers alike whether or not the customers are Bausch & Lomb affiliates. It is equally true that all wholesalers have cooperated with Soft-Lite in the development of its system.

Bausch & Lomb thus profited from the Soft-Lite business in two ways: first, by profit made in manufacturing and selling to Soft-Lite; second, by sharing, through stock ownership of wholesale distributors of Soft-Lite's goods, in the profits which lay between the Soft-Lite selling price and the consumer purchase price. Bausch & Lomb, the evidence shows, understood well as early as 1925 the advantages to itself through these subsidiaries of the Soft-Lite Plan, which secured an increased profit for division among distributing agencies. As a consequence, Bausch & Lomb concerned itself with prices charged to wholesalers by Soft-Lite, discussed each step of the price mark-up from Soft-Lite up to the consumer, insisted that reductions in its prices to Soft-Lite should be passed along the distribution line, and through its affiliated corporations cooperated in the price arrangements and the elimination of undesirable retailers.

Soft-Lite's control of distribution did not cease with this sale of its goods to optical wholesalers. It sought as wholesale outlets distributors who were free from business...

To continue reading

Request your trial
258 cases
  • Dobbins v. Local 212, International Bro. of Elec. Wkrs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • October 10, 1968
    ..."in order that the ground may be cleansed effectually from the vice of the former illegality," United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Company, 321 U.S. 707, 724, 64 S.Ct. 805, 814, 88 L.Ed. 1024. Thirdly, the decree should close off "untraveled roads" to the illicit end and not "only the wo......
  • United States v. Manning
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • February 23, 1963
    ...States to vindicate a public interest, and the decrees in those cases are fashioned accordingly. In United States v. Bausch & Lomb Co., 1944, 321 U.S. 707, 64 S. Ct. 805, 88 L.Ed. 1024, the Court found that the defendant had established an illegal system of retail price maintenance. The Cou......
  • Rea v. Ford Motor Company, Civ. A. No. 67-286.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • January 30, 1973
    ...is unlawful per se under the Sherman Act except as allowed by the Miller-Tydings Amendments. United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 321 U.S. 707, 64 S.Ct. 805, 88 L.Ed. 1024 (1944). As to advertising allowances, see P. Lorillard Co. v. FTC, 267 F.2d 439 (3d Cir. 1959). There is a viola......
  • United States v. Standard Oil Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • June 28, 1948
    ...Publishing Co., supra, 293 U.S. at page 278, 55 S.Ct. at page 185, 79 L.Ed. 356. And see, United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 1944, 321 U.S. 707, 720-724, 64 S.Ct. 805, 88 L.Ed. 1024. 44 United States v. Klearflax Linen Looms, Inc., 1945, D.C.Minn. 63 F.Supp. 32. 45 United States v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Antitrust Enforcement in Colorado: New Directions, New Concerns
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 6-1, January 1977
    • Invalid date
    ...250 U.S. 300 (1919). 49. United States v. General Electric Company, 272 U.S. 476 (1926). 50. United States v. Bausch and Lomb Optical Co., 321 U.S. 707 (1944); United States v. Parke, Davis and Co., 362 U.S. 29 (1960); Simpson v. Union Oil Company, 377 U.S. 13 (1964); and Albrecht v. Herald......
  • Restraints of Trade
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Premium Library Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth) - Volume I
    • February 2, 2022
    ...subsequently elicited from its dealers a promise not to deal with discounters. See also United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 321 U.S. 707, 723 (1944) (observing that “there is more here than mere acquiescence of wholesalers”); FTC v. Beech-Nut Packing Co., 257 U.S. 441, 452-54 (1922)......
  • The Evolving Populisms of Antitrust
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 93, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...Co., 377 U.S. 13, 24 (1964); United States v. Parke, Davis and Co., 362 U.S. 29, 47 (1960); United States v. Bausch and Lomb Optical Co., 321 U.S. 707, 724 (1944). 163. Bausch and Lomb, 321 U.S. at 720 (quoting United States v. Soconoy-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 218 (1961); see Fashion O......
  • Sylvania, Vertical Restraints, and Dual Distribution
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin No. 25-1, March 1980
    • March 1, 1980
    ...Sherman Act, Soft-Lite on appeal challenged the judg-ment only as it related to price fixing. See United States v. Bausch &Lomb OpticalCo.,321 U.S. 707, 719 (1944). Nevertheless, the Su-premeCourtaffirmed the judgment in terms applicable tobothpricefixingandnon price customer restraints:"Ad......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT