[pure-silver] Re: Amusing Kodak commercial
- From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:53:37 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: <afterswift@xxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 3:03 AM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Amusing Kodak commercial
About 20 years ago Kodak lost a court case with Polaroid
for stealing Polaroid's patents when Kodak produced their
version of the instant print camera. Since then both
litigants have been outrun by digital and those patents
aren't worth very much to either party. Dr. Land's company
doesn't exist anymore. Polaroid's remaining business is in
the hands of other outfits, producing components of the
original line as part of the bankruptcy settlements.
But Kodak isn't a one-product outfit as was Polaroid.
Kodak is into many different fields, some of them
industrial. But the Polaroid case does reveal that Kodak
no longer had an enterprising corporate culture even in
the 1980s. They reworked traditional technology instead of
improving it. They were good at marketing as the leader in
an oligopoly. Kodak lost that niche when the economy
really went global and new cyber technology changed the
nature of photography. Then new competitors became
independent of Kodak patents and influence.
The decline of Kodak had it roots in a corporate culture
that was slow to change. Reminds me of IBM during the rise
of the PC. They had no idea of where the market was or how
large it could become. And didn't really care. The big oil
outfits are headed for the same cold shower.
The Kodak CEO is merely a chip off the old blockheads who
ran Kodak in the recent past.
Bob
I have been told by someone who I think knows that Kodak
could have won this patent litegation if it had persevered.
I also was told by a person employed as a consultant by
Polaroid some years ago that she got disgusted with them
because they just sat on their hands and did no research on
new products. I don't think Kodak quite fell into this trap
but large companies can become paralyzed by size. The fact
is that Kodak still had (and has) the best technology for
such things as coating uniformity. Smaller companies, who
try to fill in products, often don't have this knowledge. I
think untimately the problem is that companies like Kodak
are essentially investment services for their stockholders
and have little interest in the specific products or
services they provide as long as they make a sufficient
profit.
Note BTW that Kodak turned down what became the Xerox
machine because "We are a chemical company and this is not a
chemical process" attributed to C.E.K.Mees.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
