|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Kodak May Not Survive 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!
Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 01-15-2012 01:16 PM
From this morning's Japan Times Business section:
quote:
Kokak sues Fujifilm as stock slumps
Jan. 15, 2012 - 06:45AM JST ( 7 )
ROCHESTER, New York —
Even as the specter of bankruptcy protection looms, Eastman Kodak Co is intensifying its efforts to defend its intellectual property.
In a lawsuit it filed here Friday against Fujifilm Corp, Kodak claimed some of its Japanese rival’s cameras infringe its digital-imaging technology. At the beginning of the week, Kodak sued Apple Inc and HTC Corp, claiming some of their smartphones, tablets and other devices infringe Kodak patents related to transmitting images.
The ailing photography pioneer has relied on patent licensing fees and lawsuits to collect $1.9 billion since 2008.
Kodak’s stock slumped Friday amid renewed fears that the 132-year-old business icon is preparing to seek bankruptcy court protection from its creditors.
Based in Rochester, New York, Kodak has amassed more than 1,000 digital-imaging patents, and almost all of today’s digital cameras rely on its technology. Mining its rich array of inventions—through both licensing deals and lawsuits—has become an indispensable tool in its long and painful digital overhaul.
Kodak claims Fujifilm is infringing five separate patents related to various aspects of capturing, storing, previewing and transmitting images. It said it has licensed the same technology to more than 30 companies, including mobile-device makers such as Motorola Inc and Nokia Corp.
Years of negotiations ended with Tokyo-based Fujifilm suing Kodak in October for patent infringement, a claim Kodak’s chief intellectual property officer, Timothy Lynch, called “a thinly veiled attempt to redirect attention from their continued use of Kodak patented technology.”
Calls to Fujifilm were not immediately returned.
Kodak is pursuing a third dispute before the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, against Apple and BlackBerry maker Research in Motion Ltd over image-preview technology. Kodak has said it hopes to get $1 billion from a resolution of the two-year-old claim. But the commission, a U.S. arbiter for trade disputes, recently put off its decision until September.
Citigroup and Kodak both declined to comment on a Bloomberg report that Citigroup is in talks to provide Kodak bankruptcy financing.
Bloomberg said three anonymous people familiar with the negotiations said Kodak may seek protection from creditors within weeks and then auction its digital-imaging patents, which analysts estimate could fetch at least $2 billion. Kodak put them up for sale in July, but has seen little interest.
Worries about a bankruptcy protection filing surfaced in September after Kodak hired major restructuring law firm Jones Day as an adviser.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-19-2012 09:44 AM
It's a god-damned shame. Kodak has been a part of America as long as I can remember, and long before that as well. But they smugly stuck with an out-going technology even when it was clear that film was dying, all of their "film is stronger than ever" marketing bullshit over the last ten years notwithstanding. Actually, they had long lost the quality edge that brought them to the table in the first place. I have been shooting landscapes and nature on a semi-pro basis for a long time, and I haven't opened a yellow box in probably thirty years. Look at magazines like Outdoor Photographer, books from other landscape shooters. For the very, very few that are still shooting film, it's all Fuji Astia, Reala, Velvia.
I wish then luck in their reorganization, but I don't hold out much hope for them. You can't sue your way back to profitability.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-19-2012 09:50 PM
First, I don't think Kodak's bankruptcy has very much to do with film. As I understand it, film manufacture is the only part of their business that is turning any profit. If they could cut off the non-film parts of the company, Kodak would not be in bankruptcy right now. It is the REST of the business, which is being poorly managed, that is sinking the company.
I also don't think the idea that Kodak wasn't prepared for the growth of digital photography is the main reason they are bankrupt, either. I think there is a fundamental shift in the way people think about and use imagery which is at the root of Kodak's problems. This isn't about "digital pictures." This is about "what people do with pictures once they have them."
Where, once, we developed and enlarged photos then stored them in photo albums, people now send them by e-mail, look at them a few times then delete them. Maybe they'd project slides or movies on a screen, in the past. Now, they put them on FaceBook.
Imagery has become transient. Pictures are something that are thrown away, almost as soon as they are taken.
Kodak sells film, cameras, printers, ink, paper; all "permanent" forms of image making. Kodak needs to stop concentrating on physical forms of imagery, regardless of the originating format or process, and concentrate on MANIPULATING imagery. I think manipulating images is where the future lies.
I don't care how you created the picture in the first place. You could use film, a digital camera or some future technology that hasn't been invented yet. I don't even care if you paint it with a brush. The thing that Kodak should be doing is to concentrate on scanning those images; importing them into a computer; storing them; editing them; transmitting them; displaying them (electronically or physically) and sharing them.
I think Kodak has lost focus of their mission statement. They were never about technology. They have always been about the social aspects of image making. In fact, the technology that put them on the map in the first place wasn't necessarily the most advanced or the highest quality. What put them on the map was the idea that anybody could easily make and share photographs.
"You pull the string. We'll do the rest."
Nobody really cared what was inside the original Brownie box camera. All people cared about was that they could have pictures to share with other people. For all that they cared, there could have been little fairies inside the box, drawing the picture.
What Kodak needs to do is go back to that original mission statement. Forget about the camera, the "thing." Concentrate on the "what," the socializing, the sharing and the fun that comes AFTER you take the picture.
Kodak should have created some kind of computer program for photo editing that would make Adobe Photoshop look like "Pixel Paint."
Kodak should have made scanners that quickly and easily scan film and photo prints.
Kodak should have been the ones to invent "iPhoto."
Again, they should concentrate on the social aspects of photography that happen AFTER the shutter goes "click!".
I think they still have time to do it if they get their shit together, right now. They'll be ass-out if they don't.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-20-2012 09:03 AM
Louis, I'm looking for a job. I don't think anything could be worse than what I'm doing now. I'd make the jump in a heartbeat if it was possible. What's Kodak's phone number? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It is very easy to get hung up on the technological aspect of photography. I use a 1953 vintage Rolleiflex Automat. Somebody else uses a Nikon digital. We both get the same result.
The thing to remember is that the result is not a picture. The result is an IDEA. Photography is not about digital cameras, film, inkjet printers or darkrooms. It is not about negatives and digital computer files. Photography is about transmitting an IDEA from my brain to yours.
"My wife and I went to Gaffney, South Carolina."
"We saw the water tower that's shaped like a giant peach."
^^^ THAT ^^^ IS ^^^ PHOTOGRAPHY ^^^
^^^ THAT ^^^ IS *** NOT *** PHOTOGRAPHY. ^^^ THAT is a piece of film.
(Okay, it's a digital scan of a piece of film. Work with me, here, will ya'? )
I don't care how well you can use a camera or develop film. I don't care how skilled you are at using Photoshop. I don't care if you own 100 cameras. You are not a photographer until you get this idea through your thick skull!
Go listen to the song "Kodachrome" by Paul Simon.
Go ahead. Do it right now. I'll wait for you.......
Listen to the WORDS of that song. How many of the lyrics talk about cameras or film?
Answer: ONE LINE -- "I've got a Nikon camera. Love to take a photograph."
That's IT! The rest of the song talks about IDEAS and IMAGERY.
"Nice, bright colors" "The Green of Summer" "Makes you think all the world's a sunny day."
Photography hasn't got a fucking thing to do with film!
It's about thoughts and feelings. It's about mental imagery. It's about sharing memories. It's about transmitting those memories from one person's mind into another's.
Paul Simon figured it out in the 1970's. Why does Kodak forget this in the year 2012?
The reason Kodak is bankrupt is because they forgot.
If somebody could pound this idea through their thick skulls, they might be able to get their mojo back.
If they don't Kodak will become little more than a name that somebody sticks on a box.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic