It's official: Kodak in bankruptcy

Glad to see them gone. Any company going around trying to shake down other companies for tribute the way they do needs to go bankrupt. Kodak actually patents such incredible innovations as computers sending other computers data (in 2007 no less). They are pathetic.
 
David Murphy said:
Glad to see them gone. Any company going around trying to shake down other companies for tribute the way they do needs to go bankrupt. Kodak actually patents such incredible innovations as computers sending other computers data (in 2007 no less). They are pathetic.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't blame Kodak for dodgy patents, blame the crazy system that allows it.
 
David Murphy said:
Any company going around trying to shake down other companies for tribute the way they do needs to go bankrupt.
Click to expand...

That pretty much means you'd want any large company in the world today -- especially any company that actually develops new technology -- to go bankrupt. As others here have said, Kodak didn't make the rules but they do exist within a legal and economic framework.

Anyway, that was an ill-considered and churlish suggestion to make, at this moment.
 
They've filed for Ch 11, not Ch 7. So they have not gone into liquidation. In effect Ch 11 allows the insolvent firm to discriminate between its finance creditors and its trade creditors. Business will continue as Kodak seek reorganisation/restructuring. It seems as if half of all US airlines are in Ch 11 half the time! It's still a sad day and query whether the film biz will survive. If i could pick one Kodak product to save it would be ektachrome but i'm not holding my breath.
 
semilog said:
That pretty much means you'd want any large company in the world today -- especially any company that actually develops new technology -- to go bankrupt. As others here have said, Kodak didn't make the rules but they do exist within a legal and economic framework.

Anyway, that was an ill-considered and churlish suggestion to make, at this moment.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure there is quite the gradation between having patents and defending them when competitors do not license them, and being a patent troll existing solely to sue every other company making anything resembling anything in your patent portfolio. Proving prior arts to patents a patent troll has filed can in some cases be a pretty costly process, and the practice of patent trolling does in no way encourage the development of new technology. Kodak isn't the worst offender by a long shot, but they do partake in the practice somewhat. The last weeks, Kodak has sued both Samsung and Fujifilm for, e.g., for a patent sounding a lot like what "live view" is, taking still photos while previewing a motion capture.
 
gavinlg said:
I really hope their films continue on somehow - Kodak is making my favorite film of all types at the moment...
Click to expand...

-Yup, I'm just off the phone with my local dealer (In film, that is...) - I was well stocked on Tri-X, but now I am the happy owner of a lot of Portra 160 and 800 as well - in both 135 and 120.

Gut feeling says film production will continue, but just in case...
 
kode said:
The last weeks, Kodak has sued both Samsung and Fujifilm for, e.g., for a patent sounding a lot like what "live view" is, taking still photos while previewing a motion capture.
Click to expand...

And if you don't know what the exact nature of the lawsuit is, and what other related patents and art are out there, complaining about it is meaningless. For example, there are many different technical means to implement what you're generically calling live view. All of that stuff was invented by people, and all of it was done with significant capital investments. By the shareholders of companies like Kodak.

It's not as though this stuff has always existed, or as though it suddenly, spontaneously, popped into existence.

It may interest you to know that Thomas Edison's legendary R&D facility at West Orange was built and operated with money that Edison acquired through his work on defensive patents. Essentially, he developed alternative methods for telegraph multiplexing and sold patents for those methods to telegraph companies. There were already good multiplexing methods. Edison did this work with the specific intent that everything should be patented, and the resulting patents should be used to lock competitors out of the market. In other words Edison -- arguably the most important and prolific inventor in American history -- was by any reasonable definition a patent troll.

The parallels to much of what's happening today are not difficult to see. And those parallels tell us that much of the bellyaching about the current patent system are both historically naive and lacking in nuance.
 
Edison might've had some ideas, sure, but a lot of it wasn't just him, and a lot of it was also improvements on other peoples prior work (light bulb, motíon picture camera, phonograph all existed in some form before Edison "invented" them), that's a good example. I don't completely disagree with your point of patents being somewhat valid, but what I am saying is that they aren't always a good thing. As a new company, you could get screwed over completely by lawyerbadgering oligopolies, but I guess we should all just salute the large corporations and just forget about new innovative companies that have no place in the world anymore.
 
A sad development. Reading The Economist article, The Last Kodak Moment, and learning not so much of Kodak's various missteps but of the radical measures required at Fujifilm to allow it to survive, I can't really see that this is an event where someone needs to be blamed. Hopefully they can develop some new business and keep our favourite films coming, but I guess that is unlikely.
 
I'm looking on the bright side, Kodak could not have continued the way they were, and now, after a long time, they are going to have to make some serious changes. I'd much rather see a much smaller Kodak turn a profit, than a much larger one report a loss.

I do think that if the film division was spun off, it could have a bright future, film is still a billion dollar business, there is no reason why a different Kodak could be a very successful company in the future.
 
semilog said:
In other words Edison -- arguably the most important and prolific inventor in American history -- was by any reasonable definition a patent troll.
Click to expand...

And much of the early motion picture history consists of "criminal pirates" battling back the Edison Trust, and eventually settling in Hollywood, as far as possible from New York jurisdiction...
 
thegman said:
I'm looking on the bright side, Kodak could not have continued the way they were, and now, after a long time, they are going to have to make some serious changes. I'd much rather see a much smaller Kodak turn a profit, than a much larger one report a loss.

I do think that if the film division was spun off, it could have a bright future, film is still a billion dollar business, there is no reason why a different Kodak could be a very successful company in the future.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Ironically, I think Kodak needs to dump their digital emphasis and go back to what they do best i.e. film technology. Obviously, it will be a much smaller company, but it will at least survive in some fashion as opposed to simpky being a forgotten dinosaur.
 
I think some people are being a bit harsh and judgemental without showing a sufficiently broad overview of economic and industrial history.
Reflect for a moment on some of the giants of American industry that were started on the cusp of a huge technology surge in the industrial world around the turn of the century and which prospered mightily during and after World Wars 1 & 2.

Everyone benefited from their output and innovation, especially through the 40's, 50's and 60's but as they grew and grew they also became less and less flexible at the same time and their very size and success blinded them to the dangers of thinking things would never change but continued growth and markets were assured.
Look at the size of some of those global companies today compared to where they once were. General Motors? Bethlehem Steel? DuPont? Kodak? PanAm? The railways? The list could go on and on.

And sometimes they became a bit arrogant too. Two examples I have a little knowledge about might illustrate the point. DuPont's development committee rejected a new fibre invented in their labs because they "couldn't see a use for it" Today it's known as Goretex.
Kodak did the same thing when offered the rather primitive process that became Xerox. Why? "Because it isn't photography".

It's part of industrial evolution and rather than venting our spleen at the company, think more about the employees, the Mum and Dad shareholders, the retirees and the communities that are going to be impacted far more personally than a few photographers moaning about possibly losing their favourite film supply.

Having said that, and as others have noted, Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is designed to allow an orderly reorganisation which may - or may not - save key parts of the company. If successful, they will probably trade out of Chapter 11 and maybe that will include the film manufacturing.

We should all be hoping so.
 
I don't think there are very many large companies that haven't resorted to pathetic lawsuits, and other dirty antics.
Surely someone will buy into Tri-x, it's got to be one of the most popular films. (as far as I can see, it is THE most popular film)
 
Kodak gone, maybe.

Bigger market cuts for Fujifilm, Efke, Adox, Fomapan, Ilford. I suspect C-41 and E-6 will be the next niche and it will require one or two more shakedowns before we will have a small number of manufacturers for B&W films.

Might take years though before we get there. I'll continue to stock up anyway 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom