12SEPW4
ffl.iSEPM4
11 3 Willis
XST7/THTJSB_1 3 Sentember l9n!
W McDowell
Philin Morris
100 Park Avenue
New York 10017
USA
Dear Wally
During the course of our recent conversation in Richmond. I raised
the question of the potential risks which might %rise from the
rreon issue being debated in the court. .1 indicated our concern
that this could spill over into an ill-informed but nontheleas
damaging criticism by the media of expRnded tobacco generally.
I do not believe the subtleties of the DIET and 013 would
find themselves in the headlines.
Valcolm Matthews mentioned to me that when he raised the question
with Reynolds recantly, they indicated that they believed
Philip Uorris would not place any great emphasis an the Freon
Problem when the action comes to court since there was no longer
a case to answer.
Of course one car argue that Reynolds, having fully evaluated the
risks, are determined to take action and therefore are unlikely
to be swayed by anything. Nevertheless, In view of the co=ents
to Aireo, it might be prudent to make sure that in forming their
&ssessments Reynolds have not misjudged the position of Philip
Morris. Furthermore, It would be oven worse it they are relying
On a misguided concept of the industry's reaction and attitude
to the Freon issue, which is likely to be based on their own
views and the sycophantic response of their smaller licencees
to the comforting statements which Reynolds have issued. The
acceptance of the DIET Process has been almost wholly deo-en-ae-n-t
Contd... /2
0%
Ili
J@b
a,
-4
B.A.T INDUSTRIES P.LC. - MMESOTA DEPOSMORY COPY PRODUCED PURSUAmT To I VILD. OF
CONSENy juoGmNT iDATEo SISM iN SrATE OF SOTA, ET AL v. PmxAP Alongs. Er AL. CASE No. CI-94-M5
2
Ur W 11cDowell
Philip Uorris, Now York Contd
8 September 1982
I am sure an balance there is no advantage for anyone in forcing
this matter into open discussion if it can be avoided, nevertheless,
it in unreasonable for Reynolds to assume that having taken action
in the courts, they can rely on others to play down the most
serious problem which Reynolds have with the G13 Process. I
therefore suggest that it might be worthwhile for Philip Morris
to indicate to !!eynolds the serious Situation which might &rise
as a result of bringing the infringement action.
Yours sincerely
11 2 WILLIS
CC Ur It Matthews, Alreo
BCC Ur I Steinberg, Airco
ON
jh-
C711
00
B.A.T INDUSTRIES P-LC- - MINNESOTA DSPOSITORY COPY PROIDUcFD PuRwANT To VII.D. OF
CONSENT JUDGtANT DATED UM IN STATE OF 1ANKSOTA, ET AL- V- PHILIP UORRZA ET AL' CASE No. CI-94-MS