Re: Kodak to stop making digital cameras

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Pete A, Feb 11, 2012.

  1. Pete A

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:

    > On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> Alan Browne writes:
    >>
    >>> Trying to sell patents...

    >>
    >> What will happen after all the patents are sold?
    >>
    >> The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions without
    >> competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.

    >
    > Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
    > their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
    > not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
    > bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).


    I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
    but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
    bankruptcy protection:

    <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725>

    > [...]
    Pete A, Feb 11, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Pete A

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:

    > On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote:
    >> On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
    >>>> Alan Browne writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Trying to sell patents...
    >>>>
    >>>> What will happen after all the patents are sold?
    >>>>
    >>>> The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions
    >>>> without
    >>>> competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.
    >>>
    >>> Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
    >>> their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
    >>> not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
    >>> bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).

    >>
    >> I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
    >> but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
    >> bankruptcy protection:
    >>
    >> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725>

    >
    > Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.)
    >
    > I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they
    > have first dibs on patent sale revenue?
    >
    > As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case
    > activist sh's are trying to get organized:
    > http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71623871
    >
    > As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people
    > lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak
    > believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever
    > the hell that is - eg: wishful).


    As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a
    handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they
    just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"!

    The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising
    denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a
    failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown
    out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small
    Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task.
    However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order.
    "Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have
    more sway than the consumers who fund their investments.

    The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead
    wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for
    no other reason than...
    Pete A, Feb 11, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Pete A

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-02-11 21:51:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

    > On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:03:14 +0000, Pete A
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote:
    >>>> On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
    >>>>>> Alan Browne writes:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Trying to sell patents...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> What will happen after all the patents are sold?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions
    >>>>>> without
    >>>>>> competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
    >>>>> their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
    >>>>> not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
    >>>>> bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).
    >>>>
    >>>> I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
    >>>> but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
    >>>> bankruptcy protection:
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725>
    >>>
    >>> Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.)
    >>>
    >>> I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they
    >>> have first dibs on patent sale revenue?
    >>>
    >>> As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case
    >>> activist sh's are trying to get organized:
    >>> http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71623871
    >>>
    >>> As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people
    >>> lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak
    >>> believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever
    >>> the hell that is - eg: wishful).

    >>
    >> As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a
    >> handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they
    >> just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"!
    >>
    >> The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising
    >> denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a
    >> failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown
    >> out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small
    >> Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task.
    >> However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order.
    >> "Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have
    >> more sway than the consumers who fund their investments.
    >>
    >> The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead
    >> wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for
    >> no other reason than...

    >
    > Its not the dickhead who has the influence. Its the people with real
    > knowledge who most effectively swing the share prices, and I'm not
    > necessarily talking about insider knowledge.


    It's both (hence my ending with ...) - feedback and control theorists
    plus statistisions have demonstrated many times why our economic
    systems are inherently unstable. The current economic problems in
    Europe are caused by a total failure to understand the principles
    (which are counterintuitive).
    Pete A, Feb 11, 2012
    #3
  4. Pete A

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-02-11 23:14:11 +0000, Alan Browne said:

    > On 2012-02-11 16:03 , Pete A wrote:
    >> On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote:
    >>>> On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
    >>>>>> Alan Browne writes:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Trying to sell patents...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> What will happen after all the patents are sold?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions
    >>>>>> without
    >>>>>> competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
    >>>>> their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
    >>>>> not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
    >>>>> bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).
    >>>>
    >>>> I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
    >>>> but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
    >>>> bankruptcy protection:
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725>
    >>>
    >>> Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.)
    >>>
    >>> I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they
    >>> have first dibs on patent sale revenue?
    >>>
    >>> As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case
    >>> activist sh's are trying to get organized:
    >>> http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71623871
    >>>
    >>> As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people
    >>> lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak
    >>> believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever
    >>> the hell that is - eg: wishful).

    >>
    >> As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a handful
    >> of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they just
    >> happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"!
    >>
    >> The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising
    >> denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a
    >> failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown
    >> out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small
    >> Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task.
    >> However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order.
    >> "Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have
    >> more sway than the consumers who fund their investments.

    >
    > Consumers do not fund investments, they provide cash flow, margin and
    > profit while imposing liabilities on the company (warranty, delayed
    > service, etc.).


    As many in business say "If it wasn't for the customers my job would be
    much easier."

    Non-consumers tend to bleed a country to death so I strongly suggest
    that it is only consumers that directly or indirectly fund investment.


    >> The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes
    >> up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no
    >> other reason than...

    >
    > The only reasons to sell are because of an expectation of a drop,
    > stagnation or a need for cash for something else. Overall the market
    > is rational - at least in "steady" times.


    Expectation often leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy due to the way
    the system works.

    Most systems are stable during steady times. A car with no shock
    absorbers is stable on a flat road.
    Pete A, Feb 12, 2012
    #4
  5. Pete A

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-02-12 01:15:36 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

    > On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:06:57 +0000, Pete A
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2012-02-11 21:51:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:03:14 +0000, Pete A
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote:
    >>>>>> On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Alan Browne writes:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Trying to sell patents...
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> What will happen after all the patents are sold?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions
    >>>>>>>> without
    >>>>>>>> competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
    >>>>>>> their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
    >>>>>>> not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
    >>>>>>> bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
    >>>>>> but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
    >>>>>> bankruptcy protection:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they
    >>>>> have first dibs on patent sale revenue?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case
    >>>>> activist sh's are trying to get organized:
    >>>>> http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71623871
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people
    >>>>> lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak
    >>>>> believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever
    >>>>> the hell that is - eg: wishful).
    >>>>
    >>>> As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a
    >>>> handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they
    >>>> just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"!
    >>>>
    >>>> The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising
    >>>> denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a
    >>>> failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown
    >>>> out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small
    >>>> Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task.
    >>>> However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order.
    >>>> "Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have
    >>>> more sway than the consumers who fund their investments.
    >>>>
    >>>> The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead
    >>>> wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for
    >>>> no other reason than...
    >>>
    >>> Its not the dickhead who has the influence. Its the people with real
    >>> knowledge who most effectively swing the share prices, and I'm not
    >>> necessarily talking about insider knowledge.

    >>
    >> It's both (hence my ending with ...) - feedback and control theorists
    >> plus statistisions have demonstrated many times why our economic
    >> systems are inherently unstable. The current economic problems in
    >> Europe are caused by a total failure to understand the principles
    >> (which are counterintuitive).

    >
    > All of which sounds very impressive but generally has nothing to do
    > with the dickhead's decisions on monday morning. Nor has it anything
    > much to with the detailed company knowledge of financial analysts.


    Hmm. Then it must be the Tooth Fairy f'ing up most of the global economy.
    Pete A, Feb 12, 2012
    #5
  6. Pete A

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-02-12 03:55:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

    > Pete A wrote:
    >> [...]
    >> Hmm. Then it must be the Tooth Fairy f'ing up most of the global economy.

    >
    > Which has what to do with "The main reason that shares fall in value
    > is because some dickhead wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell
    > shares in company xyz for no other reason than...".
    >
    > Or do you have a different idea of what constitutes a dickhead than I
    > do?


    Yes.
    Pete A, Feb 12, 2012
    #6
  7. Pete A

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-02-12 14:41:16 +0000, Alan Browne said:

    > On 2012-02-11 20:21 , Pete A wrote:
    >> On 2012-02-11 23:14:11 +0000, Alan Browne said:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-02-11 16:03 , Pete A wrote:
    >>>> On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote:
    >>>>>> On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Alan Browne writes:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Trying to sell patents...
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> What will happen after all the patents are sold?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions
    >>>>>>>> without
    >>>>>>>> competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
    >>>>>>> their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
    >>>>>>> not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
    >>>>>>> bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
    >>>>>> but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
    >>>>>> bankruptcy protection:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they
    >>>>> have first dibs on patent sale revenue?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case
    >>>>> activist sh's are trying to get organized:
    >>>>> http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71623871
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people
    >>>>> lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak
    >>>>> believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever
    >>>>> the hell that is - eg: wishful).
    >>>>
    >>>> As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a handful
    >>>> of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they just
    >>>> happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"!
    >>>>
    >>>> The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising
    >>>> denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a
    >>>> failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown
    >>>> out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small
    >>>> Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task.
    >>>> However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order.
    >>>> "Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have
    >>>> more sway than the consumers who fund their investments.
    >>>
    >>> Consumers do not fund investments, they provide cash flow, margin and
    >>> profit while imposing liabilities on the company (warranty, delayed
    >>> service, etc.).

    >>
    >> As many in business say "If it wasn't for the customers my job would be
    >> much easier."

    >
    > It's a tongue in cheek expression, but no real businessman believes it
    > unless they want to be out of business in the soon to be.
    >
    >>
    >> Non-consumers tend to bleed a country to death so I strongly suggest
    >> that it is only consumers that directly or indirectly fund investment.

    >
    > Question of definition. Investors provide capital to establish or
    > expand a business. Customers are the reason (usually) to make the
    > business work and provide a return.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>>> The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes
    >>>> up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no
    >>>> other reason than...
    >>>
    >>> The only reasons to sell are because of an expectation of a drop,
    >>> stagnation or a need for cash for something else. Overall the market
    >>> is rational - at least in "steady" times.

    >>
    >> Expectation often leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy due to the way the
    >> system works.

    >
    > The system worked over the past decade or more by ignoring prudence
    > (usually in the form of the risk assessment heads of large finance
    > cos.).
    >
    >>
    >> Most systems are stable during steady times. A car with no shock
    >> absorbers is stable on a flat road.

    >
    > Financial geniuses have been driving the system at maximum "efficiency"
    > sacrificing stability. Black Swans emerge. There is nothing "new"
    > about this - it's been predicted often and well enough over the early
    > 2000's through to the "crash" in 2008. A good read is "The Big Short"
    > to give you an idea about insanity that a few could see (and profited
    > by it).


    Thanks for your reply, Alan. I shall order a copy of "The Big Short".
    Pete A, Feb 12, 2012
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bob Salomon

    Kodak to Stop Selling Traditional Cameras in U.S.

    Bob Salomon, Jan 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    617
    Robert
    Jan 14, 2004
  2. Hans-Georg Michna

    Kodak to stop selling traditional cameras

    Hans-Georg Michna, Jan 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    672
    sam ende
    Jan 16, 2004
  3. RichA

    Re: Kodak to stop making digital cameras

    RichA, Feb 10, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    244
    nospam
    Feb 11, 2012
  4.  (Ted Nolan

    Re: Kodak to stop making digital cameras

    (Ted Nolan, Feb 10, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    267
    Robert Coe
    Feb 12, 2012
  5. Joe Kotroczo

    Re: Kodak to stop making digital cameras

    Joe Kotroczo, Feb 11, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    353
    Views:
    3,293
    Robert Coe
    Jul 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page