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

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:34:09 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in
<ertle5pn8nsqcgk8agaogdrqhp7lu5vh08@4ax.com>:

>I have no idea what patents Kodak owns, ...

Pretty easy to find out.

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:05:45 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:34:09 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in
><ertle5pn8nsqcgk8agaogdrqhp7lu5vh08@4ax.com>:
>
>>I have no idea what patents Kodak owns, ...
>
>Pretty easy to find out.

But I don't need to find out to answer the question. The question was
what intellectual property right revenues have to do with declining
Kodak sales in the camera market. The question was not "Which Kodak
intellectual property rights revenues have declined?".



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:32:31 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in
<dj1me5hat1fl9c02abflg6jkamf2hnpq8i@4ax.com>:

>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:05:45 -0700, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:34:09 -0400, tony cooper
>><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in
>><ertle5pn8nsqcgk8agaogdrqhp7lu5vh08@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>I have no idea what patents Kodak owns, ...
>>
>>Pretty easy to find out.
>
>But I don't need to find out to answer the question. The question was
>what intellectual property right revenues have to do with declining
>Kodak sales in the camera market. The question was not "Which Kodak
>intellectual property rights revenues have declined?".

I'd say it's pretty relevant to the actual issue at hand,
but of course YMMV.

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams

Ï "Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:hcd5ml$gsb$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Plastic Grey sucks.
>
My crappy P&S camera, www.nytech.de is made of die-cast aluminium and has a
real glass LCD screen window. After almost 3 years of use, it's as good as
new, while other P&S shooters' look scratched. Strangely enough is made in
China, but with a Pentax lens (and a Sony sensor). As usually,
www.esnips.com/web/dimtzortsphotos



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

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

rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4aea5f0a$0$1609
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Rich <rander3127@gmail.com> 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 ***?
>

No, but I didn't control 60% of the digital camera market only to blow it,
like Kodak did. I didn't put out the best original DSLR only to blow it,
like Kodak did. I didn't jump into the CMOS market five years too late and
blow it, like Kodak did...etc.

Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4aea5f0a$0$1609
>$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>> Rich <rander3127@gmail.com> 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 ***?
>
>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
rfischer@sonic.net

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ertle5pn8nsqcgk8agaogdrqhp7lu5vh08@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:44:48 -0000, "whisky-dave"
> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-110e43fae8bc@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>> 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.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:33:50 -0000, "whisky-dave"
<whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:ertle5pn8nsqcgk8agaogdrqhp7lu5vh08@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:44:48 -0000, "whisky-dave"
>> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-110e43fae8bc@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> 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_cooper213@earthlink.net (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)