. My only concern is that a potential buyer could use the Kodak trademarks on non-Kodak film. Hopefully the EK-KA agreement addresses that.
You are ignoring the colour paper and photo chemistry businesses, which are larger than the film business.It seems that they want $34 million for the right to distribute Eastman Kodak film and use the trademarks associated with them. Maybe that is a fair price.
Not necessarily. The "non-exclusive" part of the agreement may simply refer to the ability of Kodak Alaris to market other brands of film, from other sources.At the time it was set up, the supply agreement was specified as "Non exclusive. so yes they could even now sell someone elses film as Kodak.
My only concern is that a potential buyer could use the Kodak trademarks on non-Kodak film. Hopefully the EK-KA agreement addresses that.
on the microfilm side, (which WAS another spinoff at one point) the Current Kodak Brand Microfilm is actually Agfa-Belgum COPEX, although I understand that Agfa stopped selling it under the COPEX name under that deal.
They have had years of experience doing the same with "Made in England" films; woulda' been a win-win.
If the backing paper problem has truly started again and despite some evidence for this, the jury is probably still out
who is to say they were not buying them already cut and packed with just their label on them? anyway - converting sheet film is a fairly simple - Low tech operation. All the equipment can be faked with machinery made for the commercial print-shop industry, except for the notching tool. COATING sheet film is a touch special as it works best if it is coated on THICK Polyester base. while 35mm is generally best on acetate base because of the light pipe issue..
Veep = VP = Vice-PresidentWhat the heck is veep, ek, pw? So many words and yet you abbreviate the important ones.
Veep = VP = Vice-President
EK = Eastman Kodak
No Go = head wagging horizontally.
PW = Providence Women. Okay, I guessed on that one.
I'm not going to pretend like I can read financial reports with any authority, but they have stated that they are profitable.
Let's say that PPF is sold off to a company who will do great with it, all the manufacturing of the film it's self is made by Eastman Kodak... That's really quite scary. EK is a bloated, slowly sinking barge. They have paid off some 200 million in debt in the past few years but are still not profitable right now. Even if we survive this sale, what could happen in the next few years? All of Kodak's film offerings are lashed to a boat anchor. In a dream world, PPF would be sold off to a film company like Ilford or ADOX and the Kodak film manufacturing would be spun off to safety as it's own entity. I'd imagine it would be better for tax reasons to not be just one company.
It's quite worrisome, I was hoping not to have to worry about all this for another decade at least. Losing color film would be a huge loss, but I would still be shooting b&w. With Tetenal's future uncertain and them making all of Ilford's chemicals it could all go south very quickly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?