The Japan-Fuji side has largely defended its position by using a Distributional Fairness argument. 3 Japan and Fuji thus argue that the distribution of customer base is well defined and equitable since each company dominates in its home market and has a similar proportion in the export market of its competitor. 7 Kodak also employs arguments of Distributional Fairness in this case. Distributional arguments such as these that are supported with hard numbers represent a valuable tool in influencing opinions of fairness. Both sides employ end results and statistics to add merit to their claims of equity or inequity.
Market share is the measure being used in both cases to define fairness.
Kodak believes that an inequity exists because it has less market share in Japan than elsewhere in the world. Fuji wonders how Kodak could claim inequity when another American firm, Polaroid, not only competes in, but dominates, an entire sector of the Japanese photography industry. Thus, the final outcome, in this case market share, is central to a positive analysis of fairness couched in a distributional light and leads each side to believe in the validity of their stance. Calls for renewed Section 301 action demonstrate US sentiments concerning Negative Reciprocity Fairness . Given an unfair trading practice, Americans are willing to respond in kind.