Kodak's punishment for ditching DSLR's and going with P&S's only

Umm ... I viewed the slide show ... all 24 of them and ... umm.

Charles

Rich <> wrote:
> (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4aea5f0a$0$1609
>$:
>
>> Rich <> wrote:
>>>This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>>Kodak Consumer Digital Imaging sees sales fall
>>>Thursday, 29 October 2009 17:50 GMT
>>
>> And I bet that you don't even know what those decisions were.
>>
>> Tell us: did YOU invest a lot of money into digital imaging products
>> 15 years ago? Or are you just playing armchair quarterback and
>> pretending that you're something other than an ignorant ass?
>
>No, but I didn't control 60% of the digital camera market only to blow it,

And when did Kodak ever control 60% of the digital camera market?

> I didn't put out the best original DSLR only to blow it,

Neither did Kodak.

>like Kodak did.

If you think that Kodak's was the best dSLR then you really are either
an idiot or a delusional cultist.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer

"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:44:48 -0000, "whisky-dave"
> <whisky-> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rich" <> wrote in message
>>news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-...
>>> This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The sales drop has
>>> primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
>>> intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.
>>
>>Anyone know what this actually means, as intellectual property royalty
>>revenues
>>doesn;t appear to mena camera sales of any sort.
>>
> Intellectual property describes that which is a creation of the mind:
> inventions, designs, images, etc. If Kodak has a patent on a design,
> and allows some other company to use that patented design for a fee,
> that income is intellectual property royalty.

Well I know what Intellectual property is, we have an Intellectual property
laws department.
But what is it they have lost out on ,the sale of Polaroid film IP, as I
didn;t think they
licensed it to anyone else. Other than that I can;t think of anything Kodak
invented.

>
> If the patented design is only used in a film camera, the revenue
> would decline as fewer film cameras are sold by the companies that
> incorporate Kodak's designs in their cameras.
>
> I have no idea what patents Kodak owns, but let's say they have
> patented a design to advance the film in a camera. Other camera
> makers may pay a royalty to Kodak to use that design in their cameras.

That's what I was wondering what did Kodak invent that's still in use today
that's significant in the market.

whisky-dave

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:33:50 -0000, "whisky-dave"
<whisky-> wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:44:48 -0000, "whisky-dave"
>> <whisky-> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rich" <> wrote in message
>>>news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-...
>>>> This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The sales drop has
>>>> primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
>>>> intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.
>>>
>>>Anyone know what this actually means, as intellectual property royalty
>>>revenues
>>>doesn;t appear to mena camera sales of any sort.
>>>
>> Intellectual property describes that which is a creation of the mind:
>> inventions, designs, images, etc. If Kodak has a patent on a design,
>> and allows some other company to use that patented design for a fee,
>> that income is intellectual property royalty.
>
>Well I know what Intellectual property is, we have an Intellectual property
>laws department.
>But what is it they have lost out on ,the sale of Polaroid film IP, as I
>didn;t think they
>licensed it to anyone else. Other than that I can;t think of anything Kodak
>invented.

You can Google "Kodak's patents" and find several hits for things like
the Sun/Java/Kodak patent cases and Kodak's patents on x-ray film.
And others.

Also, anyone who uses the Kodak trademarks on photo paper pays Kodak
for the use of the name. HP Photo Paper, for example, is trademarked
by Kodak.

>>
>> If the patented design is only used in a film camera, the revenue
>> would decline as fewer film cameras are sold by the companies that
>> incorporate Kodak's designs in their cameras.
>>
>> I have no idea what patents Kodak owns, but let's say they have
>> patented a design to advance the film in a camera. Other camera
>> makers may pay a royalty to Kodak to use that design in their cameras.
>
>That's what I was wondering what did Kodak invent that's still in use today
>that's significant in the market.
>

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

(tony*cooper)

Intellectual property describes that which is a creation of the mind:
inventions, designs, images, etc.

==================================

Intellectual property is an outdated concept
based on the ability to enforce that edict.

Information can't be owned in the true sense, just the power to
exclusively control it.

Property, in all forms, is a beastly concept,
appealing to a lower mind that wants what
it see/conceives.

It's a shame it made it into the 21st century.
(no property = no war)

Matt Wayne

Rich wrote:
>
> This company could write a book about bad business decisions.
>
> Kodak Consumer Digital Imaging sees sales fall
> Thursday, 29 October 2009 17:50 GMT
>
> Kodak has reported that its business division that includes digital
> cameras suffered a 49% fall in sales (compared to the same period last
> year) in the third quarter of 2009. "Continued declines in consumer
> spending have had significant impacts in the company's digital camera
> and digital picture frame businesses," it said. The sales drop has
> primarily been due to a decline of approximately $157 million in
> intellectual property royalty revenues, the company said.
>
> The division did report a 92% leap in consumer inkjet printer and ink
> sales that meant, after royalties were excluded, overall sales in the
> business grew. Despite this, the division posted an $89m loss,
> compared to a $24m profit in the same period 2008.


Back to your old, unethical tricks, eh? You failed to provide any
attribution for the above article, which you'd copied and pasted
(from "Digital Photography Review").

Plus, you should've included a link to the story, and also limited
yourself to quoting selected excerpts from it.

Alas, what else could be expected of an incorrigible troll, such
as yourself?

Anyhow, here's the URL in question:

<http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09102902kodakthirdquarter.asp>

--
Cordially,
John Turco <>

Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>

John Turco

Matt Wayne wrote:
>
> (tony cooper)
>
> Intellectual property describes that which is a creation of the mind:
> inventions, designs, images, etc.
>
> ==================================
>
> Intellectual property is an outdated concept
> based on the ability to enforce that edict.
>
> Information can't be owned in the true sense, just the power to
> exclusively control it.
>
> Property, in all forms, is a beastly concept,
> appealing to a lower mind that wants what
> it see/conceives.
>
> It's a shame it made it into the 21st century.
> (no property = no war)


So, if nobody owns any property, people won't fight over it? That's
a rather naive notion, I fear.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <>

Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>

John Turco