Kodak bought the Verichrome factory...
As I hinted at for the Agfa case, these plants were intended for the film market and could be subsidized by it. When losses became unbearable the plants had lost their value to investors long before (the issue of german camera industry being behind).
Well only because Mees insisted that they take over Wratten & Wainright if he was to join Eastman Kodak and set up a research facility in Rochester. They also lost Wellington a manager of one of Kodak's UK factories who set up Wellington & Ward eventually merging with Ilford.
Ian
Ditto leverkusen's factory, as selling the plant was 'instant' cash, Harman like their ex Agfa finishing machine...
APX100 and Agfa photo 100 were my fav films.
[Kodak] should have bought Canon and Nikon before '55.
I think so eventually.Did Agfa ever get cash for that plant...?
Think of these issues:
-) a favourable company structure as I already hinted at
-) the neccessary capacity to do the investment
-) the custom implications related to importing things from overseas in the 50s.
-) the attitude towards the japanese photo industry
(from what we know, widely talked down up into the 60s at least by the german photographic industry)
-) the existance of knowledge at all about the japanese industry
(for the german industry I have much doubt for people other than export directors)
Does anyone know of any US company that bought in the 50s a foreign firm doing high added value manufacturing to import those products into the USA ?
To what extent where the german-made Kodak-Retinas imported into the USA?
Interesting hint at that attitude thing.
Concerning buying an overseas company the point I made was it would be hard doing so for importing then those products.
And my undestanding of you was just that Kodak should have bought those japanese manufacturers to import those cameras (mainly) to the USA.
On the other hand: in that period japanese labour was real cheap in contrast to US labour. That made it possible to import japanese high-end cameras to the USA (without competing products to face that). But would that also be true for lower end cameras and maybe have overcome any customs issue to allow such plant acquisition?
To what extent where the german-made Kodak-Retinas imported into the USA?
I remember a time, about 20 years ago, when I was in my darkroom and I needed a clear answer about mixing Kodak products and developing times, or how to bleach a given paper, fixer capacity, what time to develop a film at 16c or 28c, anything... A quick 1-800-Kodak call and I'd get all my answers. That was incredible.
Interesting hint at that attitude thing.
Concerning buying an overseas company the point I made was it would be hard doing so for importing then those products.
And my undestanding of you was just that Kodak should have bought those japanese manufacturers to import those cameras (mainly) to the USA.
On the other hand: in that period japanese labour was real cheap in contrast to US labour. That made it possible to import japanese high-end cameras to the USA (without competing products to face that). But would that also be true for lower end cameras and maybe have overcome any customs issue to allow such plant acquisition?
To what extent where the german-made Kodak-Retinas imported into the USA?
in the 50s and 60s, Non-Japanese firms were not allowed to buy more than a minority interest in Japanese firms. SO why would Kodak Bother to waste capital to buy a small stake in Canon or Nikon? If Kodak thought making a rangefinder or SLR would help their overall business, they were quite capable of building it or having it built to order.
It made more sense to build lower end cameras which would help generate film sales.
I would not say they copied Lands design. The judge said so.
The "Retina-plant" was not closed in 1960 nor in the 60s.
the Kodak Poloroid case was one of the interesting ones where the Kodak machine was quite a bit different but Land seemed to get credit for the whole concept of "self developing film" with the technical details not counting for much.
That was what was so "groundbreaking" about that litigation - and why it was probably wrongly decided.
Before that decision, a patent for a "concept" was not a valid patent. The trial judge made new law by declaring valid what all previous decisions would have declared invalid.
Kodak had the information and wherewithal to use methods and procedures that differed greatly from the approach taken by Polaroid. Normally, if you use very different methods to obtain a similar but not identical result, you won't be in breach of a patent.
Interestingly, Kodak's breach was found not to be willful. So they weren't exposed to increased damages.
The trial was long, but most of it was over the issue of measure of damages. Polaroid sought $12 billion. Kodak was mostly successful on that part. Their "profits" were measured at about $900 million, and therefore that was the amount they were ordered to pay.
By the time that the litigation ended, the instant camera and integral film market was dropping, due to the combination of the explosion of 35mm film use and one hour labs.
the Kodak Poloroid case was one of the interesting ones where the Kodak machine was quite a bit different but Land seemed to get credit for the whole concept of "self developing film" with the technical details not counting for much.
Fuji did not violate any patents for their products.
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?