1) In the long term, Leica will not survive in its present state. I presume it will be bought at some time for the value associated with its brand name and trademarks.
Towards that, and before Leica drinks the koolaid...
2) Leica is a brand name that is well known and well respected throughout several generations of professional and educated amateur photographers and the industry in general. They also have extensive optical-related businesses, as have many traditional 'camera' companies.
Leitz has problem that is not commonly seen these days. Their name has cachet, and thus, value. Scarcity and rarity help to keep the mystique going. More people have heard of Kodak than Leica, but Kodak is not known for their high-end offerings, so it does not matter if you can buy an alarm clock or a Disney stuffed animal that says 'Kodak' on it.
So that leaves Leica unable to extract as much value from the name as they otherwise might, because they correctly fear two things. One, dilution of the value of the marque, and two, direct comparison with their nearest competitors.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not Leica cameras and lenses are actually 'better' than those made by other manufacturers, a common perception amongst the well-heeled camera collectors and professional photographers is that they are. They have built a core of rabid fans and defenders, such that some who read my preceding words will take them as an attack on Leica and leap to their defense.
Leica has managed to chart a rather careful course through this minefield. They have licensed and cross-licensed their name and their products with a variety of carefully-selected companies, such as Minolta and Panasonic, and they have, to the largest extent, managed to add cachet to the products and companies with which it has become associated, without damaging or diluting its own brand name. However, this has not allowed Leitz to expand their brand name recognition to a huge extent.
For example, Panasonic cameras with Leitz lenses are known as "LUMIX" models. Not "Leica-lens" models. This, one must presume, is by the design and intent of Leitz. To be sure, not all LUMIX models have Leica lenses, but many do, and although the name 'Leica' appears on the lens, it is not as widely advertised as it otherwise might be - many consumers are unaware of the fact that their LUMIX camera has a Leica lens on it.
However, this cannot last forever. As a company loses core business, if they have a reputable name, they often choose to trade on that name as they head down the drain. Thus, name-brand dilution becomes a fact of life, and Summicron soda and Noctilux sunglasses could join Leica-nameplated wristwatches and home breadmaking machines. This is why one can still buy the cheapest most crappy 'Bell+Howell" and "Argus" digital cameras imaginable, many years after the name ceased to mean anything to anyone involved in photography in any serious way.
At the same time, Leica's other companies have traded on the famous name in a more useful way. They don't license their name, they license their technology, and their name reinforces the concept among licensees of their technology that their products are superior, such as Leica Microsystems and Leica Geosystems.
I tend to believe that this is why Leica has not trod that path. They don't want to dilute their brand name, and they don't want direct comparisons with their nearest competitors. But after they're sold, then yes, Leica-branded tennis shoes.
