«

"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.

>
> The division did report a 92% leap in consumer inkjet printer and ink
> sales that meant, after royalties were excluded, overall sales in the
> business grew.

Buisness grew ?

>Despite this, the division posted an $89m loss,
They *posted* it didn;t say they had a loss.
I sense a tax scam, oh look no profit so we shouldn't have to pay tax.


> compared to a $24m profit in the same period 2008.

"whisky-dave" <whisky-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hceqkg$aoa$1@qmul...
>
> "Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 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.
>
>>
>> The division did report a 92% leap in consumer inkjet printer and ink
>> sales that meant, after royalties were excluded, overall sales in the
>> business grew.
>
> Buisness grew ?
>
> >Despite this, the division posted an $89m loss,
> They *posted* it didn;t say they had a loss.
> I sense a tax scam, oh look no profit so we shouldn't have to pay tax.
>
>
>> compared to a $24m profit in the same period 2008.

Put down the whisky Dave, it's not helping your typing skills.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:44:48 -0000, "whisky-dave"
<whisky-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 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.

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.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:05:45 -0700, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:34:09 -0400, tony cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
><(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>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

"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:44:48 -0000, "whisky-dave"
> <whisky-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> 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-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:44:48 -0000, "whisky-dave"
>> <whisky-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:9ca332f4-bda9-4db7-a103-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> 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

(E-Mail Removed) (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)

Matt Wayne wrote:
>
> (E-Mail Removed) (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)


So, if nobody owns any property, people won't fight over it? That's
a rather naive notion, I fear.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>