Flow International Corporation; Analysis of the Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment, 42349-42351 [E8-16506]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 140 / Monday, July 21, 2008 / Notices participant no more than one hour to prepare for the interview. In some instances, staff may do additional interviews with customers of the responding company or the monitor. Staff conservatively estimates that for each interview, two individuals (a company executive and a lawyer) will devote two hours (one hour preparing and one hour participating) each to responding to questions for a total of four hours. In addition, for approximately half of the divestitures, staff will seek to question two additional respondents, adding four participants (a company executive and a lawyer for each of the two additional respondents) devoting two hours each, for a total of eight additional hours. Assuming that staff evaluates up to 20 divestitures per year during the threeyear clearance period, the total hours burden for the responding companies will be approximately 160 hours per year ((20 divestiture reviews x 4 hours for preparing and participating) + (10 divestiture reviews x 8 hours for preparing and participating)). PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES Annual cost burden: Using the burden hours estimated above, staff estimates that the total annual labor cost, based on a conservative estimated average of $425/ hour for executives’ and attorneys’ wages, would be approximately $68,000 (160 hours x $425). There are no capital, start-up, operation, maintenance, or other similar costs to respondents. Review of Competition Advocacy Program The FTC’s competition advocacy program draws on the Commission’s expertise in competition and consumer protection matters to encourage federal and state legislators, courts and other state and federal agencies to consider the competitive effects of their proposed actions. The FTC Office of Policy Planning (‘‘OPP’’) sends approximately 20 letters or written comments to different state and federal government officials annually, which provide guidance on the likely competitive effects of various laws or regulations. In the past, OPP has evaluated the effectiveness of these advocacy comments by surveying comment recipients and other relevant decision makers. OPP intends to continue this evaluation by sending a written questionnaire to relevant parties between six and nine months after an advocacy comment is sent. Most of the questions ask the respondent to agree or disagree with a statement concerning the advocacy comment that they received. Specifically, these questions VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:08 Jul 18, 2008 Jkt 214001 inquire as to the applicability, value, persuasive influence, public effect, and informative value of the FTC’s comments. The questionnaire also provides respondents with an opportunity to provide additional remarks related either to the written comments received or the FTC’s advocacy program in general. Participation is voluntary. OPP staff estimates that on average, respondents will take 30 minutes or less to complete the questionnaire and 15 minutes of administrative time to prepare the response for mailing. Accordingly, staff estimates that each respondent will incur 45 minutes of burden resulting in a cumulative total of 15 burden hours per year (45 minutes of burden per respondent x 20 respondents per year). OPP staff does not intend to conduct any follow-up activities that would involve the respondents’ participation. Annual cost burden: OPP staff estimates a conservative hourly labor cost of $100 for the time of the survey participants (primarily state representatives and senators) and an hourly labor cost of $16 for administrative support time. Thus, staff estimates a total labor cost of $54 for each response (30 minutes of burden at $100 per hour plus 15 minutes of burden at $16 per hour). Assuming 20 respondents will complete the questionnaire on an annual basis, staff estimates the total annual labor costs will be approximately $1,080 ($54 per response x 20 respondents). There are no capital, start-up, operation, maintenance, or other similar costs to respondents. (d) Applicant Tracking Form: 292 hours The FTC’s Human Resources Management Office surveys job applicants on their ethnicity, race, and disability status in order to determine if recruitment is effectively reaching all aspects of the relevant labor pool, in compliance with management directives from the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. Response by applicants is optional. The information obtained is used for evaluating recruitment only and plays no part in the selection of who is hired. The information is not provided to selecting officials. Instead, the information is used in summary form to determine trends over many selections within a given occupational or organizational area. The information is treated in a confidential manner. No information from the form is entered into the official PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 42349 personnel file of the individual selected and all forms are destroyed after the conclusion of the selection process. The format of the questions on ethnicity and race are compliant with OMB requirements and comparable to those used by other agencies. Based upon past activity, the FTC staff estimates that up to 7,000 applicants will submit the form as part of the new online application process and that the form will require approximately 2.5 minutes to complete, for an annual burden total of approximately 292 hours (7000 applicants x 2.5 minutes to complete the form). Annual cost burden: The cost per respondent should be negligible. Participation is voluntary and will not require any labor expenditures by respondents. There are no capital, start-up, operation, maintenance, or other similar costs to the respondents. William Blumenthal, General Counsel. [FR Doc. E8–16508 Filed 7–18–08: 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750–01–S FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 081 0079] Flow International Corporation; Analysis of the Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment Federal Trade Commission. Proposed Consent Agreement. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order — embodied in the consent agreement — that would settle these allegations. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to ‘‘Flow International, File No. 081 0079,’’ to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/ Office of the Secretary, Room 135-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. Comments E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 42350 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 140 / Monday, July 21, 2008 / Notices PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005).1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form by following the instructions on the webbased form at https:// secure.commentworks.com/ftc-Flow. To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on that web-based form. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC website, to the extent practicable, at www.ftc.gov. As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC website. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy policy, at (https://www.ftc.gov/ ftc/privacy.shtm). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Harwood or Joseph Lipinsky, FTC Northwest Regional Office, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20580, (206) 220-6350. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the 1 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:22 Jul 18, 2008 Jkt 214001 complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for July 10, 2008), on the World Wide Web, at (https:// www.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/index.htm). A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222. Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before the date specified in the DATES section. Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment I. Introduction The Federal Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order (‘‘Consent Agreement’’) from Flow International Corporation (‘‘Flow’’). The proposed Consent Agreement is designed to remedy the likely anticompetitive effects arising from Flow’s proposed acquisition of OMAX Corporation (‘‘OMAX’’). Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, Flow will grant a royalty-free license to two Omax patents relating to waterjet controllers to any firm that seeks a license. II. Background Flow and OMAX are the leading manufacturers of waterjet cutting systems in the United States. Waterjet cutting systems use high pressure water and garnet to cut a wide variety of materials from steel to stone. The two companies have developed PC-based controllers that automatically compensate for the unique characteristics of how the waterjet cuts, such as taper (the waterjet expands after leaving the nozzle, forming a cone shape) and lag (the faster the cutting head moves, the more the waterjet will trail behind the cut). The controllers and related technology differentiate these two firms from other competitors in the marketplace. However, the controllers and related technology are also the subject of ongoing litigation between the two companies. In 2004, OMAX filed suit alleging that Flow’s products infringed its patents pertaining to controllers. Flow counterclaimed alleging that OMAX infringed its patents pertaining to controllers. Flow, a publicly traded company headquartered in Kent, Washington, is the leading manufacturer of waterjet PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 cutting systems in the United States market. OMAX is a privately-held company headquartered in Kent, Washington. OMAX owns two very broad U.S. patents covering its controller. OMAX’s controller is a significant factor behind its position as the second leading supplier of waterjet cutting systems in the United States. On December 5, 2007, Flow signed an exclusive option agreement to negotiate the acquisition of OMAX. Under the agreement, Flow and OMAX will work to negotiate a definitive agreement for Flow to acquire OMAX. Upon closing, Flow would pay approximately $109 million in cash and stock with the potential for a contingent earn-out in two years of up to $26 million. The closing will also settle the long-running and expensive patent litigation between Flow and OMAX. III. The Draft Complaint The draft complaint alleges that the transaction may substantially lessen competition in the market for the development, manufacture, marketing, and sale of waterjet cutting systems. A waterjet cutting system contains four main parts: (1) Pump, (2) cutting head, (3) cutting table, and (4) controller. Waterjet cutting systems are used by a wide variety of industrial machine tool customers. These customers range from job shops, which produce a wide variety of short-run parts, and use waterjet cutting systems to complement their traditional milling machines, lasers and flame cutters, to aerospace shops that use waterjet cutting systems because they cut without damaging materials that are affected by heat, such as titanium and aluminum. Industrial machine tool customers, as well as others, can increase cutting speed and minimize set-up time by using a waterjet cutting system instead of an alternative cutting technology. Cutting speed is affected by pump pressure, the number of cutting heads used on the system, and the sophistication of the controller. Controllers are often the least expensive means of improving cutting speed and have the further virtue of reducing set-up time if they are easily programmable. To compensate for the unique characteristics of how the waterjet cuts, controllers can improve the quality of the cut by, among other things, automatically adjusting the speed of the cut. Both Flow and OMAX produce waterjet cutting systems that feature relatively inexpensive yet sophisticated PC-based controllers that compensate for the unique characteristics of how the waterjet cuts. These controllers make Flow and OMAX each other’s closest E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 140 / Monday, July 21, 2008 / Notices PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES competitors because only they manufacture waterjet cutting systems with the most advanced and efficient controllers. The relevant geographic market within which to analyze the likely effects of the proposed transaction is the United States. The draft complaint further alleges that new entry would not prevent or counteract the anticompetitive effects of this acquisition. New entrants and existing competitors are deterred by the risk of violating the OMAX patents from developing and producing competitive waterjet cutting systems. Developing an efficient controller that clearly worksaround the potential reach of OMAX’s patents would likely be an expensive and time-consuming process, with no guarantee of success. The draft complaint also alleges that Flow’s acquisition of OMAX, if consummated, may substantially lessen competition in the market for the development, manufacture, marketing, and sale of waterjet cutting systems in the United States in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45, by eliminating direct competition between Flow and OMAX and increasing the likelihood that Flow will unilaterally exercise market power. IV. The Terms of the Consent Agreement The proposed Consent Agreement will remedy the Commission’s competitive concerns about the proposed acquisition. Under the terms of the proposed consent order, Flow must grant a royalty-free license to each competitor who seeks to license the two broad OMAX patents relating to controllers that Flow will acquire with its acquisition of OMAX. Currently Flow and OMAX are each other’s closest competitor because they each offer an efficient PC-based controller that compensates for the unique characteristics of how a waterjet cuts. OMAX’s two patents make the development of such a controller substantially more expensive and risky. Requiring Flow to grant a royalty-free license to these patents will ensure that other firms are able to replace the competition that would otherwise have been eliminated by the proposed acquisition. While Flow has two patents relating to controllers, its patents are significantly narrower in scope than the OMAX patents and, as a result, do not prevent current or future competitors from offering a viable waterjet cutting system. Current and future competitors VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:08 Jul 18, 2008 Jkt 214001 will not need licenses to these narrow patents in order to compete effectively in this market. Other aspects of Flow’s and OMAX’s business, such as customer lists, brand names, key employees, or the other parts of waterjet cutting systems, are easily duplicated by current competitors or future entrants. Consequently, to restore the competition lost by Flow’s acquisition of OMAX, the proposed consent order eliminates the entry barrier faced by current waterjet cutting system competitors and future entrants by giving them a royalty-free license to the OMAX patents. V. Opportunity for Public Comment The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the proposed consent order and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make the proposed consent order final. By accepting the proposed consent order subject to final approval, the Commission anticipates that the competitive problems alleged in the complaint will be resolved. The purpose of this analysis is to invite public comment on the proposed consent order, in order to aid the Commission in its determination of whether to make the proposed consent order final. This analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed consent order nor is it intended to modify the terms of the proposed consent order in any way. By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8–16506 Filed 7–18–08: 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750–01–S 42351 required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows: Facility: Brookhaven National Laboratory. Location: Upton, New York. Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All workers. Period of Employment: January 1, 1947 through December 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C–46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 1– 800–CDC–INFO (1–800–232–4636) or directly at 1–513–533–6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to OCAS@CDC.GOV. Dated: June 30, 2008. John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E8–16606 Filed 7–18–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163–19–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, to be Included in the Special Exposure Cohort National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice as PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees at the Kellex/Pierpont facility in Jersey City, New Jersey, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On May 30, 2008, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC: E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 140 (Monday, July 21, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42349-42351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-16506]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 081 0079]


Flow International Corporation; Analysis of the Proposed Consent 
Order to Aid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement.

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

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged 
violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or 
practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to 
Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft 
complaint and the terms of the consent order -- embodied in the consent 
agreement -- that would settle these allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 8, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. 
Comments should refer to ``Flow International, File No. 081 0079,'' to 
facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form 
should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and 
should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade 
Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room 135-H, 600 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. Comments

[[Page 42350]]

containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be 
clearly labeled ``Confidential,'' and must comply with Commission Rule 
4.9(c). 16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005).\1\ The FTC is requesting that any comment 
filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if 
possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the 
Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. 
Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be 
filed in electronic form by following the instructions on the web-based 
form at https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-Flow. To ensure that the 
Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on that 
web-based form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for 
confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for 
the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment 
to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted 
or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with 
applicable law and the public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 
16 CFR 4.9(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the 
collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as 
appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed 
in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and 
will be available to the public on the FTC website, to the extent 
practicable, at www.ftc.gov. As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes 
every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from 
the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the 
FTC website. More information, including routine uses permitted by the 
Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at (https://
www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Harwood or Joseph Lipinsky, 
FTC Northwest Regional Office, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, 
D.C. 20580, (206) 220-6350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and Sec.  2.34 of 
the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given 
that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order 
to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to 
final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record 
for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public 
Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the 
allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of 
the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page 
(for July 10, 2008), on the World Wide Web, at (https://www.ftc.gov/os/
2008/07/index.htm). A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public 
Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, 
D.C. 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.
    Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission 
in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as 
prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or 
before the date specified in the DATES section.

Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment

I. Introduction

    The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') has accepted, subject 
to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order (``Consent 
Agreement'') from Flow International Corporation (``Flow''). The 
proposed Consent Agreement is designed to remedy the likely 
anticompetitive effects arising from Flow's proposed acquisition of 
OMAX Corporation (``OMAX''). Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, 
Flow will grant a royalty-free license to two Omax patents relating to 
waterjet controllers to any firm that seeks a license.

II. Background

    Flow and OMAX are the leading manufacturers of waterjet cutting 
systems in the United States. Waterjet cutting systems use high 
pressure water and garnet to cut a wide variety of materials from steel 
to stone. The two companies have developed PC-based controllers that 
automatically compensate for the unique characteristics of how the 
waterjet cuts, such as taper (the waterjet expands after leaving the 
nozzle, forming a cone shape) and lag (the faster the cutting head 
moves, the more the waterjet will trail behind the cut). The 
controllers and related technology differentiate these two firms from 
other competitors in the marketplace. However, the controllers and 
related technology are also the subject of ongoing litigation between 
the two companies. In 2004, OMAX filed suit alleging that Flow's 
products infringed its patents pertaining to controllers. Flow 
counterclaimed alleging that OMAX infringed its patents pertaining to 
controllers.
    Flow, a publicly traded company headquartered in Kent, Washington, 
is the leading manufacturer of waterjet cutting systems in the United 
States market. OMAX is a privately-held company headquartered in Kent, 
Washington. OMAX owns two very broad U.S. patents covering its 
controller. OMAX's controller is a significant factor behind its 
position as the second leading supplier of waterjet cutting systems in 
the United States.
    On December 5, 2007, Flow signed an exclusive option agreement to 
negotiate the acquisition of OMAX. Under the agreement, Flow and OMAX 
will work to negotiate a definitive agreement for Flow to acquire OMAX. 
Upon closing, Flow would pay approximately $109 million in cash and 
stock with the potential for a contingent earn-out in two years of up 
to $26 million. The closing will also settle the long-running and 
expensive patent litigation between Flow and OMAX.

III. The Draft Complaint

    The draft complaint alleges that the transaction may substantially 
lessen competition in the market for the development, manufacture, 
marketing, and sale of waterjet cutting systems. A waterjet cutting 
system contains four main parts: (1) Pump, (2) cutting head, (3) 
cutting table, and (4) controller.
    Waterjet cutting systems are used by a wide variety of industrial 
machine tool customers. These customers range from job shops, which 
produce a wide variety of short-run parts, and use waterjet cutting 
systems to complement their traditional milling machines, lasers and 
flame cutters, to aerospace shops that use waterjet cutting systems 
because they cut without damaging materials that are affected by heat, 
such as titanium and aluminum. Industrial machine tool customers, as 
well as others, can increase cutting speed and minimize set-up time by 
using a waterjet cutting system instead of an alternative cutting 
technology. Cutting speed is affected by pump pressure, the number of 
cutting heads used on the system, and the sophistication of the 
controller. Controllers are often the least expensive means of 
improving cutting speed and have the further virtue of reducing set-up 
time if they are easily programmable. To compensate for the unique 
characteristics of how the waterjet cuts, controllers can improve the 
quality of the cut by, among other things, automatically adjusting the 
speed of the cut.
    Both Flow and OMAX produce waterjet cutting systems that feature 
relatively inexpensive yet sophisticated PC-based controllers that 
compensate for the unique characteristics of how the waterjet cuts. 
These controllers make Flow and OMAX each other's closest

[[Page 42351]]

competitors because only they manufacture waterjet cutting systems with 
the most advanced and efficient controllers.
    The relevant geographic market within which to analyze the likely 
effects of the proposed transaction is the United States. The draft 
complaint further alleges that new entry would not prevent or 
counteract the anticompetitive effects of this acquisition. New 
entrants and existing competitors are deterred by the risk of violating 
the OMAX patents from developing and producing competitive waterjet 
cutting systems. Developing an efficient controller that clearly works-
around the potential reach of OMAX's patents would likely be an 
expensive and time-consuming process, with no guarantee of success.
    The draft complaint also alleges that Flow's acquisition of OMAX, 
if consummated, may substantially lessen competition in the market for 
the development, manufacture, marketing, and sale of waterjet cutting 
systems in the United States in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton 
Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. Sec.  18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade 
Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. Sec.  45, by eliminating direct 
competition between Flow and OMAX and increasing the likelihood that 
Flow will unilaterally exercise market power.

IV. The Terms of the Consent Agreement

    The proposed Consent Agreement will remedy the Commission's 
competitive concerns about the proposed acquisition. Under the terms of 
the proposed consent order, Flow must grant a royalty-free license to 
each competitor who seeks to license the two broad OMAX patents 
relating to controllers that Flow will acquire with its acquisition of 
OMAX.
    Currently Flow and OMAX are each other's closest competitor because 
they each offer an efficient PC-based controller that compensates for 
the unique characteristics of how a waterjet cuts. OMAX's two patents 
make the development of such a controller substantially more expensive 
and risky. Requiring Flow to grant a royalty-free license to these 
patents will ensure that other firms are able to replace the 
competition that would otherwise have been eliminated by the proposed 
acquisition.
    While Flow has two patents relating to controllers, its patents are 
significantly narrower in scope than the OMAX patents and, as a result, 
do not prevent current or future competitors from offering a viable 
waterjet cutting system. Current and future competitors will not need 
licenses to these narrow patents in order to compete effectively in 
this market. Other aspects of Flow's and OMAX's business, such as 
customer lists, brand names, key employees, or the other parts of 
waterjet cutting systems, are easily duplicated by current competitors 
or future entrants. Consequently, to restore the competition lost by 
Flow's acquisition of OMAX, the proposed consent order eliminates the 
entry barrier faced by current waterjet cutting system competitors and 
future entrants by giving them a royalty-free license to the OMAX 
patents.

V. Opportunity for Public Comment

    The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for 
30 days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments 
received during this period will become part of the public record. 
After 30 days, the Commission will again review the proposed consent 
order and the comments received and will decide whether it should 
withdraw from the agreement or make the proposed consent order final.
    By accepting the proposed consent order subject to final approval, 
the Commission anticipates that the competitive problems alleged in the 
complaint will be resolved. The purpose of this analysis is to invite 
public comment on the proposed consent order, in order to aid the 
Commission in its determination of whether to make the proposed consent 
order final. This analysis is not intended to constitute an official 
interpretation of the proposed consent order nor is it intended to 
modify the terms of the proposed consent order in any way.
    By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-16506 Filed 7-18-08: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-S
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.