This is Sunday Supply Chain Stories, where we revisit the foundations that continue to shape how inventory moves, returns and recovers value.
If you enjoy the newsletter, follow The Supply Loop on LinkedIn and ask your friends to subscribe to receive the next story.
In 1952, the Department of Justice sued IBM in the Southern District of New York. The government argued that IBM controlled the market for tabulating and punch-card machines without facing real competition. IBM leased its machines on its own terms, for as long as it chose to keep leasing them. A customer who wanted out of an IBM machine had almost nowhere else to take it. This pattern held from IBM's earliest tabulators through its first computers in the early 1950s. Every one of those machines moved through a rental agreement.
The consent decree, entered January 25, 1956, in Civil Action No. 72-344, settled that case without a trial. Three of its provisions shape the rest of this story. Section IV required IBM to offer its machines for outright sale, at prices comparable to what a lessee paid. Before this, customers had no purchase option at all. Getting a new machine meant returning the old one and taking a credit toward the new lease, since nobody owned an IBM machine outright to begin with. Section V regulated what happened to a machine once it came back to IBM, whether through that kind of return or, after 1956, a genuine trade-in against a purchase. IBM then had sixty days to offer the used machine to independent equipment dealers, at a price fixed at eighty-five percent of the equivalent new machine. Section VI required IBM to give purchasers and third-party repair companies the same access to maintenance and spare parts that its own lessees received. A used IBM machine sitting on someone else's floor now qualified for the same service as a machine still under an IBM lease.
This changed the incentives inside every IBM branch office the moment a trade-in happened. IBM's revenue came from new leases, and every used machine it put back into the market gave a customer a cheaper alternative to signing one. Before the decree, IBM managed a used machine however it pleased, and holding it back protected new lease volume. After the decree, a trade-in triggered the same sequence of events every time, regardless of what it did to new sales.
IBM gave the customer a credit for the old machine, applied directly against the price of the new one. That credit is what closed the sale. Without it, IBM risked losing the deal altogether.
The used machine carried a deadline. IBM had sixty days to offer it to independent dealers.
The price came from a formula: eighty-five percent of the new machine's cost. Every used unit got the same treatment, without a case-by-case negotiation.
Independent dealers gained a standing right to see every trade-in IBM generated. The decree built that market on its own, ahead of anything IBM had planned.
Section IV made a new kind of business possible on its own. In 1961, a 22-year-old named Saul Steinberg founded Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corporation. Leasco bought IBM machines outright, something no company could do before the decree, and leased them back to customers at rates below IBM's own. By the mid-1960s, more than a hundred firms were running the same playbook, buying IBM equipment and leasing it out cheaper than IBM could. None of those businesses existed before Section IV gave them something to buy.
The value of the requirement becomes clearer against the alternative. A manufacturer with no obligation to move used equipment quickly has an incentive to slow it down instead: warehouse the units, scrap them, or release them back to the market at a pace that protects new sales. That is the default position most manufacturers land in, and it is the same instinct returns and recommerce teams push against inside their own companies today. The decree replaced that instinct with a rule. A deadline and a price attached to every returned unit, designed once into the settlement, took the place of a decision made fresh by whoever handled that week's trade-in.
The eighty-five percent formula did something else worth noticing. It replaced negotiation with a mechanical number. The price came straight from the new-machine price list and moved automatically whenever that list changed. A modern grading rubric works on the same principle: a documented rule produces the same output regardless of who is standing at the counter that day, so volume can move without a negotiation attached to every unit.
Section VI reshaped who could compete around IBM's installed base. The rule against favoring lessees over purchasers in service and parts opened room for a plug-compatible manufacturing industry to grow up around IBM's own machines, reinforced by a wave of private antitrust suits IBM absorbed through the 1960s and 1970s from companies including Telex, Memorex, and Control Data. Telex began selling plug-compatible tape drives in 1965. Memorex entered the plug-compatible disk market in 1968. Control Data and Itel followed soon after. These companies grew because the market IBM had been required to permit was large enough, and open enough, to support real competitors who tested, serviced, and resold equipment IBM had originally built. The decree created a channel for used IBM machines, and it also created the conditions for an entire industry built around extending the life of everything IBM had ever leased.
IBM's own posture toward that installed base shifted again in the early 1980s, this time for commercial reasons rather than a court order. The company pushed new sale terms to bring in cash faster, moving deliberately toward a purchase-led model. In 1981 it incorporated IBM Credit Corporation in Delaware. That entity combined the financing business with the remanufacturing and remarketing function, the internal group responsible for equipment coming off lease. The 1956 decree had once forced IBM to hand that function to outside dealers. IBM now built the same capability internally, at scale, driven by its own economics.
The lifecycle process was formalized further in 1989, when IBM began offering structured product takeback programs for clients in Europe. That program has since grown into what IBM now calls Global Asset Recovery Services. GARS remarkets pre-owned and end-of-lease equipment externally, redeploys assets inside IBM, and remanufactures machines to original manufacturing standards when they need more than a resale. Components get harvested for reuse before anything reaches the scrap stage. Bill Smith, General Manager of IBM Global Financing, described the current scale of the operation in a recent interview: more than 29,000 devices processed every week, and roughly 16,000 tons of IT equipment refurbished each year worldwide. IBM's 2024 sustainability report fills in where that material ends up. Of roughly 10,300 metric tons of end-of-life product and product scrap processed that year, across more than 68 countries, 96 percent by weight was resold, reused, or recycled. Only 0.7 percent went to landfill or incineration.
There is a fitting bookend to this story. In 1996, the Department of Justice agreed to terminate the remaining provisions of the 1956 decree in stages, citing changes in the competitive climate of the computer industry. The government's own language on the way out was direct: the decree had succeeded in encouraging competition in the computer equipment market for decades. The mandate that forced IBM to build a used-equipment channel was retired once that channel could stand on its own.
This story connects to one that ran earlier in this series, on Xerox, though the two reach a similar destination by different routes. Xerox built recovery into the product itself. The company retained ownership of its copiers by design and engineered them for disassembly, which meant recovering value at end of lease was part of the plan from the very start. IBM never made that choice voluntarily. A court wrote the first rules for IBM, in the form of a price formula and a sixty-day clock, applied to machines nobody had designed with return in mind. Grading discipline at Xerox grew out of engineering decisions made at the drawing board. At IBM, it grew out of a courtroom, and the company spent most of the following century building its own commercial reasons to run the process well. The warranty-backed, spec-tested refurbishment operation IBM runs today belongs to that later era, long after the original decree had done its work.
Both companies now run formal, warrantied recovery operations that other industries treat as reference points, and financial logic drove both of them there. Xerox built the discipline into the product. A court order built it into IBM, and IBM spent the following decades turning that obligation into a real business.
For practitioners: Where does your disposition rule actually live: in a written policy, or in the judgment of whoever handles the unit that day? If a regulator or a customer set a deadline for moving recovered inventory back into a channel, would your current process meet it? Is your resale pricing set by a formula, the way IBM's eighty-five percent cap was, or does someone negotiate it unit by unit? What would change in your recovery economics if a repair shop, reseller, or service partner had a standing right to compete for your recovered inventory, the way IBM's decree gave dealers?
Sources
United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division. United States v. International Business Machines Corporation, Civil Action No. 72-344, Consent Decree entered January 25, 1956, U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. Trade Regulation Reporter, 1956 Trade Cases ¶68,245. https://www.justice.gov/atr/page/file/1437726/dl
United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division. "Justice Department Agrees to Terminate Last Provisions of IBM Consent Decree in Stages Ending 5 Years From Today," press release, July 2, 1996. https://www.justice.gov/archive/atr/public/press_releases/1996/0715.htm
United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division. Memorandum on proposed termination of the 1956 IBM consent decree, September 11, 1995. https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/499651/dl
Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 367 F. Supp. 258 (N.D. Okla. 1973); affirmed in part, 510 F.2d 894 (10th Cir. 1975).
Wikipedia. "Saul Steinberg (businessman)." Founding and early history of Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corporation, 1961. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Steinberg_(businessman)
Computer History Museum, The Storage Engine. "1968: Memorex Introduces an IBM Compatible HDD." https://www.computerhistory.org/storageengine/memorex-introduces-an-ibm-compatible-hdd/
IBM Corporation. "Product reuse, recycling and disposal." IBM Responsibility Report. https://www.ibm.com/responsibility/environment/product-recycling
IBM Mediacenter. Interview with Bill Smith, General Manager, IBM Global Financing. "IBM Certified Pre-Owned: recycling, refurbishing, reselling off-lease IBM Systems." https://mediacenter.ibm.com
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, EDGAR filing. IBM Credit LLC, incorporation history and IBM Global Financing business segment description. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1225307/000110465917030295/a17-12292_11012g.htm
Cambridge University Press, Business History Review. "Change and Continuity at IBM: Key Themes in Histories of IBM." https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-history-review/article/change-and-continuity-at-ibm-key-themes-in-histories-of-ibm/DADE64DDC8569B2F9046B4CF47DFA814
Thank you for reading Sunday Supply Chain Stories!