Kodak "Not Innovative"

[bmattock]

I happened across this news story today - just after we had an interesting debate about a statement that Kodak is "not innovative." Frankly, I disagree, and I was pleased to find this little tidbit:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060110/nytu098.html?.v=35

IFI Issues List of 2005's Top Patent Companies
Tuesday January 10, 8:30 am ET
2005 reveals a 12 percent decrease in patents granted; Pharma and biotech also down; Perennial leader IBM sees slight decline

Some interesting numbers:


#2 CANON K K JP, with 1837 patents issued.
#5 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD KR, with 1645 patents issued.
#11 SONY CORP JP, with 1149 patents issued.
#17 FUJI PHOTO FILM CO LTD JP, with 755 patents issued.

And from another news story:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060117/NEWS01/601180309/1007/SPORTS

#27 Kodak, with 578 patents issued.

578 patents issued in 2005? And Kodak is "not innovative?" Gosh. I'll grant that it appears that Canon, Samsung, Sony, and Fuji have been busier than Kodak. One must also note that Canon, Samsung, and Sony are all involved in lots of other industries besides photography (film and digital), so only Fuji can really be directly compared.

And in that comparison, Kodak comes up short compared to Fuji. One can even note, to be fair, that Kodak has declined from the number of patents they had issued last year (714 in 2004, according to the news story cited).

But I really don't think you can say that Kodak does not innovate. They clearly do, and here's proof.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ch1]

I happened across this news story today - just after we had an interesting debate about a statement that Kodak is "not innovative." Frankly, I disagree, and I was pleased to find this little tidbit:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060110/nytu098.html?.v=35



Some interesting numbers:


#2 CANON K K JP, with 1837 patents issued.
#5 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD KR, with 1645 patents issued.
#11 SONY CORP JP, with 1149 patents issued.
#17 FUJI PHOTO FILM CO LTD JP, with 755 patents issued.

And from another news story:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060117/NEWS01/601180309/1007/SPORTS

#27 Kodak, with 578 patents issued.

578 patents issued in 2005? And Kodak is "not innovative?" Gosh. I'll grant that it appears that Canon, Samsung, Sony, and Fuji have been busier than Kodak. One must also note that Canon, Samsung, and Sony are all involved in lots of other industries besides photography (film and digital), so only Fuji can really be directly compared.

And in that comparison, Kodak comes up short compared to Fuji. One can even note, to be fair, that Kodak has declined from the number of patents they had issued last year (714 in 2004, according to the news story cited).

But I really don't think you can say that Kodak does not innovate. They clearly do, and here's proof.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

27th!

Hardly a "world beater" result. Not sure I would consider that placement to be bragging rights.

And this only measures the raw number of patents issued. Many of which are actually only "imprvements" on existing ones.

But if you view their glass as half full, have you sunk you 401(k) funds into Kodak common?

 

[bmattock]

27th!
Hardly a "world beater" result. Not sure I would consider that placement to be bragging rights.

Out of all the technology companies in the US and International companies that patent in the USA, 27th seems like pretty good to me. And I never contended it was world-beater, just that a statement that Kodak is "not innovative" seems patently (ahem) absurd.

And this only measures the raw number of patents issued. Many of which are actually only "imprvements" on existing ones.

Sounds like innovation to me.

But if you view their glass as half full, have you sunk you 401(k) funds into Kodak common?

Not yet, but I am leaning that way. Right now, my small 401(k) is out of the market, sitting in money market funds. If I did buy in, it would probably be through a mutual fund that held Kodak stock, rather than buying it directly.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ch1]

Not yet, but I am leaning that way. Right now, my small 401(k) is out of the market, sitting in money market funds. If I did buy in, it would probably be through a mutual fund that held Kodak stock, rather than buying it directly.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Hopefully that mutual fund will also hold some Canon and Fuji shares to provide some "upside". 😀

Actually, a good contrarian fund will be holding Kodak right now. Along with the Ford and GM shares!

 

[bmattock]

Hopefully that mutual fund will also hold some Canon and Fuji shares to provide some "upside". 😀

Actually, a good contrarian fund will be holding Kodak right now. Along with the Ford and GM shares!

Nothing I do matters that much. I started all over again from nothing in 2004, so there is not much there anyway. My retirement looks pretty grim, so I may as well have my fun now.

 

[ywenz]

That patent count means nothing if it's a ridiculous idea that have perhaps 0.01% chance of becoming an innovative product. Pushing these patents out are pieces of cakes for these large companies with their own legal dept..

 

[bmattock]

That patent count means nothing if it's a ridiculous idea that have perhaps 0.01% chance of becoming an innovative product. Pushing these patents out are pieces of cakes for these large companies with their own legal dept..

The fact that there are patent filings indicates that they have a legal office that handles patents. Patent clerks and lawyers do not generate inventions, they document them and file the necessary paperwork and do the research to ensure no prior art exists, that they don't infringe on other patents, etc. They don't create diddly. Scientists and engineers do.

The number of successful patent filings indicates that they have an R&D department that is at least large enough and busy enough to receive a new patent roughly 1 1/2 times per day.

Patent count does not equal productivity, profit, or even intelligence. It does indicate that they are indeed pushing forward with R&D funding, and it can be safely inferred that they would do this in order to hopefully make a profit, since R&D is seen as an investment in oneself.

All of this is to say that Kodak is indeed "innovative." Innovation is defined as practices that lead to successful new products or (pardon the self reference) innovations.

Does Kodak create new products? Yes, quite often. Are they successful? Long term, who knows - but for now, they are quite the large going concern.

Are they therefore innovative? Yes, in my opinion.

The comments, I believe, went like this: "Kodak sux."

"Why does Kodak sux?"

"Because they are not innovative."

I don't think that statement is true. I think I have shown that Kodak innovates.

You may not like Kodak - that's your right. You think they "sux" and that's fine too. But maybe you might want to look in the mirror and realize that the reason you don't like Kodak stems from your own prejudices, rather from any objective reality. I said that before - when I acknowledged that I also have an irrational dislike of Microsoft products. So I understand the feeling, but it is not based in reality.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ch1]

Well two more meaningful statistics rather than raw patent count would be R&D/Turnover and Patent/R&D.

How much is Kodak investing in R&D and how "productive" is that investment?

Those are the real measures - not raw patent counts.

 

[Frank Granovski]

Kodak used to sell some excellent rangefinders. My mother had a couple when I was just a squirt. 😎

 

[GeneW]

Bill, I see a parallel between Kodak and IBM in this. IBM, too, is often thought of as a company that got stuck in mainframes and never really innovated much. Bad rap. Some of the stuff that came out of the IBM research labs was terrific, though not particularly well known. They even had a hand in stabilizing and improving the Apache web server via a technology swap with the open-source community, and the mail engine they developed, Postfix, is excellent, and free. Even lesser know is their contribution of freely available white papers on a variety of technical topics (including Linux) that is some the best documentation you can find.

Maybe the comparison is farfetched, but maybe not.

Gene

 

[bmattock]

Bill, I see a parallel between Kodak and IBM in this. IBM, too, is often thought of as a company that got stuck in mainframes and never really innovated much. Bad rap. Some of the stuff that came out of the IBM research labs was terrific, though not particularly well known. They even had a hand in stabilizing and improving the Apache web server via a technology swap with the open-source community, and the mail engine they developed, Postfix, is excellent, and free. Even lesser know is their contribution of freely available white papers on a variety of technical topics (including Linux) that is some the best documentation you can find.

Maybe the comparison is farfetched, but maybe not.

Gene

Gene, I think you hit it dead on the head. IBM, AT&T, Telecordia, and the list goes on. Kodak does invest a lot in R&D. Kodak is supplying a lot of the nuts and bolts for the big boys in DSLR and MF DSLR technology, such as the 32mp sensor the latest Hassy is sporting. But, oh well, "Kodak sux." Yeah. Here's something shiny to play with, there's the group W bench.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Trius]

Gene: I think the comparison is "off" because the open source community doesn't really exist in imaging, AFAIK. However, it is relevant from the POV that a company's patent count does not necessarily indicate the quality or importance of the portfolio. For awhile Xerox had a big internal effort on patent filings. The idea was based on numbers ... the more filings, the higher the probability of patents granted, which in turn would drive good ideas being implemented. The paradigm doesn't always work; Xerox drastically changed the incentive program after a couple of years.

Earl

 

[ch1]

Approaching point where Bill starts answering his own posts.

I'm outta of this thread.

 

[x-ray]

Kodak makes some of the finest CCD's for MF backs and consumer cameras aswell as scanners. Unfortunately they can't seem to pull their act together and make their own pro dslr or mf back work. Another problem for kodak was the loss of one billion dollars last fiscal year. How much tghis year and how long can a company keep going with this kind of loss?

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

 

[bmattock]

Kodak makes some of the finest CCD's for MF backs and consumer cameras aswell as scanners. Unfortunately they can't seem to pull their act together and make their own pro dslr or mf back work. Another problem for kodak was the loss of one billion dollars last fiscal year. How much tghis year and how long can a company keep going with this kind of loss?

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

I agree, on both counts. The question was whether or not Kodak is innovative. I say they are. They may not make it as a going concern, although I suspect they will. Mismanaged and badly run doesn't mean that they don't invest serious ducats into R&D or that they don't have innovative products.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ywenz]

x-ray: I love your gallery!

 

[Trius]

For many years Kodak has not been able to produce a complete product on their own. If you think about this, it indicates there is something systemically wrong. Not being a Kodak employee, but knowing more than a couple, my reading is that the middle management layer has been both bloated and seized of morbid inertia. It must drive the innovators in R&D absolutely crazy.

Earl