Great comment, I agree. We were at Disney and the imagination ride is sponsored by Kodak. The mood was not optimistic, they have been cutting back for years ever since digital technology took their film business.
Kodak today is like Xerox was ten years or so ago. Xerox managed to pull themselves back from the brink so I suppose Kodak could also, given the right management. They still have a great brand name, which is worth something.
It's no skin off any established mega-corportation to fight and win or loose patent lawsuits... they have the money and lawyers do manage and control it all. However this is slowly but surely causing a higher and higher barrier to entry for startup companies trying to enter these established markets....
Then you approach business from a different direction. Form a very small company. Blatantly rip off other companies' IP. Source manufacturing from a third party. Pay your profits up a series of shell companies. Go out of business after a month of selling the product. When you get sued, there is no money left...
They key is to either be below the radar or to be willing to fold a company on a whim. Neither are get-rich-quick schemes, but can earn you pretty good money.
Kodak today is like Xerox was ten years or so ago. Xerox managed to pull themselves back from the brink so I suppose Kodak could also, given the right management. They still have a great brand name, which is worth something.
Working around the corner from one of Xerox's engineering centers, that sure doesn't seem to be the case to me. Shuttered two of the buildings, one up for sale, and a few cars around the other.
If things like Gimp have "violated" Kodak's patents for over a decade (based on the extremely limited summary), how much teeth do they really have?
Working around the corner from one of Xerox's engineering centers, that sure doesn't seem to be the case to me. Shuttered two of the buildings, one up for sale, and a few cars around the other.
If things like Gimp have "violated" Kodak's patents for over a decade (based on the extremely limited summary), how much teeth do they really have?
Xerox is at least modestly profitable these days. During the late '90s they were in huge trouble and seemed destined for bankruptcy.
I don't know much about patents, let alone the one at issue, but if 30 companies license a patent from you, it probably has some validity.
Where'd the $90mil come from? Kodak has already cut a lot of their "deadweight". They are ripe for picking.
They are losing money, and have a pretty big debt overhang which essentially you have to add to any takeover cost. Their market cap was half of what it is today just a few months ago and nobody jumped then, so I'm thinking they are probably still seen to be carrying around a lot of dead weight. Even in the depths of Apple's woes during the '90s they were still seen as a takeover target. Sun even made an offer. If anyone is seen as a potential suitor for Kodak, I've never heard about it.
I just blogged on this, comparing patent trolling exercises, like Kodak's and Nokia's, to the Seinfeld episode where Jerry, upon seeing George wearing sweatpants admonishes him saying, "You know the message you're sending out to the world with these sweatpants? You're telling the world, 'I give up. I can't compete in normal society. I'm miserable, so I might as well be comfortable.'"
I just blogged on this, comparing patent trolling exercises, like Kodak's and Nokia's, to the Seinfeld episode where Jerry, upon seeing George wearing sweatpants admonishes him saying, "You know the message you're sending out to the world with these sweatpants? You're telling the world, 'I give up. I can't compete in normal society. I'm miserable, so I might as well be comfortable.'"
Seinfeld references are always welcome, and are eerily relevant.
The genius-ness of that show is underscored by the wide range of contexts for which a Seinfeld quote STILL nails it - a decade plus after the show went off the air.
Kodak today is like Xerox was ten years or so ago. Xerox managed to pull themselves back from the brink so I suppose Kodak could also, given the right management. They still have a great brand name, which is worth something.
For people of a certain age, sure, but I think for today's twenty to thirty something consumer the Kodak brand is mostly associated with cut-rate digital point and shoots of the sort that are heavily featured at Walmart and Target. That, and tacky digital photo frames.
I imagine they make printers, but for all the mind share they command they might as well not.
EDIT: Holy God, I just checked their website and they still make "single use" film cameras. They appear to be the bare minimum of plastic needed to hold a roll of good old Kodak film, and can be had for as little as $5.
Also, some kind of TV media box, for "sharing the memories." That is one weak-ass consumer product lineup, I have to assume the only thing keeping the lights on are geriatrics that are comfortable with the name (and aren't having any of this digital photography nonsense).
EDIT SOME MORE: Further investigation shows they do have a pretty robust professional products lineup, although I have no idea how those are perceived in that market. They might do well to simply drop the consumer front, which looks to be little more than a pro-forma, nostalgic shell anyway, and concentrate on their pro stuff. Maybe introduce a lineup of "prosumer" gear to try to get the stink of failure off.
For people of a certain age, sure, but I think for today's twenty to thirty something consumer the Kodak brand is mostly associated with cut-rate digital point and shoots of the sort that are heavily featured at Walmart and Target. That, and tacky digital photo frames.
I am not well equipped to know, and I thank you for pointing this out.
Not that there isn't a market for cheap point-and-shoot cameras and tacky digital photo frames. And they do sell film, which some people still buy.
Where'd the $90mil come from? Kodak has already cut a lot of their "deadweight". They are ripe for picking.
$90mil is the amount that Sun Microsystems paid Kodak to license the help application patent.
Kodak might be ripe for the picking but not by Apple. Apple has a history of picking up smaller companies and, even then, only when they fit into Apple's overall strategy. How would Apple accommodate an extra 24,400 employees? That would nearly double Apple's workforce!
Comments
Great comment, I agree. We were at Disney and the imagination ride is sponsored by Kodak. The mood was not optimistic, they have been cutting back for years ever since digital technology took their film business.
Kodak today is like Xerox was ten years or so ago. Xerox managed to pull themselves back from the brink so I suppose Kodak could also, given the right management. They still have a great brand name, which is worth something.
It's no skin off any established mega-corportation to fight and win or loose patent lawsuits... they have the money and lawyers do manage and control it all. However this is slowly but surely causing a higher and higher barrier to entry for startup companies trying to enter these established markets....
Then you approach business from a different direction. Form a very small company. Blatantly rip off other companies' IP. Source manufacturing from a third party. Pay your profits up a series of shell companies. Go out of business after a month of selling the product. When you get sued, there is no money left...
They key is to either be below the radar or to be willing to fold a company on a whim. Neither are get-rich-quick schemes, but can earn you pretty good money.
Kodak today is like Xerox was ten years or so ago. Xerox managed to pull themselves back from the brink so I suppose Kodak could also, given the right management. They still have a great brand name, which is worth something.
Working around the corner from one of Xerox's engineering centers, that sure doesn't seem to be the case to me. Shuttered two of the buildings, one up for sale, and a few cars around the other.
If things like Gimp have "violated" Kodak's patents for over a decade (based on the extremely limited summary), how much teeth do they really have?
Have to make money somehow.
But it is fine for Apple to steal others technologies to make money?
But it is fine for Apple to steal others technologies to make money?
The legitimacy of Kodak's claims have yet to be established.
And which "stolen" technologies are you referring to?
Working around the corner from one of Xerox's engineering centers, that sure doesn't seem to be the case to me. Shuttered two of the buildings, one up for sale, and a few cars around the other.
If things like Gimp have "violated" Kodak's patents for over a decade (based on the extremely limited summary), how much teeth do they really have?
Xerox is at least modestly profitable these days. During the late '90s they were in huge trouble and seemed destined for bankruptcy.
I don't know much about patents, let alone the one at issue, but if 30 companies license a patent from you, it probably has some validity.
$90mil vs. $1.3bil and a lot of deadweight. Tough call.
Where'd the $90mil come from? Kodak has already cut a lot of their "deadweight". They are ripe for picking.
Where'd the $90mil come from? Kodak has already cut a lot of their "deadweight". They are ripe for picking.
They are losing money, and have a pretty big debt overhang which essentially you have to add to any takeover cost. Their market cap was half of what it is today just a few months ago and nobody jumped then, so I'm thinking they are probably still seen to be carrying around a lot of dead weight. Even in the depths of Apple's woes during the '90s they were still seen as a takeover target. Sun even made an offer. If anyone is seen as a potential suitor for Kodak, I've never heard about it.
Check out the post, if interested:
Patents, Trolls and ?Sweatpants? Sensibilities
http://bit.ly/5XYN8n
Mark
I just blogged on this, comparing patent trolling exercises, like Kodak's and Nokia's, to the Seinfeld episode where Jerry, upon seeing George wearing sweatpants admonishes him saying, "You know the message you're sending out to the world with these sweatpants? You're telling the world, 'I give up. I can't compete in normal society. I'm miserable, so I might as well be comfortable.'"
Check out the post, if interested:
Patents, Trolls and ?Sweatpants? Sensibilities
http://bit.ly/5XYN8n
Mark
Well done.
Seinfeld references are always welcome, and are eerily relevant.
Well done.
Seinfeld references are always welcome, and are eerily relevant.
The genius-ness of that show is underscored by the wide range of contexts for which a Seinfeld quote STILL nails it - a decade plus after the show went off the air.
Kodak today is like Xerox was ten years or so ago. Xerox managed to pull themselves back from the brink so I suppose Kodak could also, given the right management. They still have a great brand name, which is worth something.
For people of a certain age, sure, but I think for today's twenty to thirty something consumer the Kodak brand is mostly associated with cut-rate digital point and shoots of the sort that are heavily featured at Walmart and Target. That, and tacky digital photo frames.
I imagine they make printers, but for all the mind share they command they might as well not.
EDIT: Holy God, I just checked their website and they still make "single use" film cameras. They appear to be the bare minimum of plastic needed to hold a roll of good old Kodak film, and can be had for as little as $5.
Also, some kind of TV media box, for "sharing the memories." That is one weak-ass consumer product lineup, I have to assume the only thing keeping the lights on are geriatrics that are comfortable with the name (and aren't having any of this digital photography nonsense).
EDIT SOME MORE: Further investigation shows they do have a pretty robust professional products lineup, although I have no idea how those are perceived in that market. They might do well to simply drop the consumer front, which looks to be little more than a pro-forma, nostalgic shell anyway, and concentrate on their pro stuff. Maybe introduce a lineup of "prosumer" gear to try to get the stink of failure off.
For people of a certain age, sure, but I think for today's twenty to thirty something consumer the Kodak brand is mostly associated with cut-rate digital point and shoots of the sort that are heavily featured at Walmart and Target. That, and tacky digital photo frames.
I am not well equipped to know, and I thank you for pointing this out.
Not that there isn't a market for cheap point-and-shoot cameras and tacky digital photo frames. And they do sell film, which some people still buy.
I am not well equipped to know, and I thank you for pointing this out.
Not that there isn't a market for cheap point-and-shoot cameras and tacky digital photo frames. And they do sell film, which some people still buy.
Oh, I'm well out of the demographic. But I hear tell.
Oh, I'm well out of the demographic. But I hear tell.
What did you say, sonny? I don't hear so well at all.
Where'd the $90mil come from? Kodak has already cut a lot of their "deadweight". They are ripe for picking.
$90mil is the amount that Sun Microsystems paid Kodak to license the help application patent.
Kodak might be ripe for the picking but not by Apple. Apple has a history of picking up smaller companies and, even then, only when they fit into Apple's overall strategy. How would Apple accommodate an extra 24,400 employees? That would nearly double Apple's workforce!
Apple are not IBM, thankfully.
i know right? and if it wasn't for apple's contributions, many people would not be able to enjoy many wonderful products
humans are the worst...
yup; they stab you in the back and leave you as carrion
or is that
take you as carryon
very confusing
The legitimacy of Kodak's claims have yet to be established.
And which "stolen" technologies are you referring to?
Take off your Apple shades and have a look around, there is a lot more to the world than them.