If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to stop making digital cameras
On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:
On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote: Alan Browne writes: Trying to sell patents... What will happen after all the patents are sold? The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions without competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end. Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?). I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded, but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on bankruptcy protection: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725 Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.) I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they have first dibs on patent sale revenue? As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case activist sh's are trying to get organized: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871 As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever the hell that is - eg: wishful). As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"! The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task. However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order. "Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have more sway than the consumers who fund their investments. The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no other reason than... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to stop making digital cameras
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:03:14 +0000, Pete A
wrote: On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote: Alan Browne writes: Trying to sell patents... What will happen after all the patents are sold? The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions without competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end. Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?). I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded, but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on bankruptcy protection: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725 Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.) I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they have first dibs on patent sale revenue? As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case activist sh's are trying to get organized: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871 As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever the hell that is - eg: wishful). As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"! The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task. However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order. "Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have more sway than the consumers who fund their investments. The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no other reason than... Its not the dickhead who has the influence. Its the people with real knowledge who most effectively swing the share prices, and I'm not necessarily talking about insider knowledge. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to stop making digital cameras
On 2012-02-11 09:34:09 -0800, Mxsmanic said:
Joe Kotroczo writes: Nope, they sold their image sensor business to Platinum Equity back in November Platinum Equity? Sounds like a chop shop. Which means that you can kiss that business goodbye. Yup! That sounds like a Romneyesque "I like to fire people" operation. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to stop making digital cameras
On 2012-02-11 21:51:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:03:14 +0000, Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote: Alan Browne writes: Trying to sell patents... What will happen after all the patents are sold? The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions without competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end. Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?). I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded, but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on bankruptcy protection: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725 Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.) I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they have first dibs on patent sale revenue? As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case activist sh's are trying to get organized: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871 As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever the hell that is - eg: wishful). As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"! The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task. However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order. "Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have more sway than the consumers who fund their investments. The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no other reason than... Its not the dickhead who has the influence. Its the people with real knowledge who most effectively swing the share prices, and I'm not necessarily talking about insider knowledge. It's both (hence my ending with ...) - feedback and control theorists plus statistisions have demonstrated many times why our economic systems are inherently unstable. The current economic problems in Europe are caused by a total failure to understand the principles (which are counterintuitive). |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to stop making digital cameras
On 2012-02-11 16:03 , Pete A wrote:
On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote: Alan Browne writes: Trying to sell patents... What will happen after all the patents are sold? The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions without competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end. Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?). I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded, but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on bankruptcy protection: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725 Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.) I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they have first dibs on patent sale revenue? As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case activist sh's are trying to get organized: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871 As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever the hell that is - eg: wishful). As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"! The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task. However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order. "Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have more sway than the consumers who fund their investments. Consumers do not fund investments, they provide cash flow, margin and profit while imposing liabilities on the company (warranty, delayed service, etc.). The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no other reason than... The only reasons to sell are because of an expectation of a drop, stagnation or a need for cash for something else. Overall the market is rational - at least in "steady" times. -- "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty." Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer). |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to stop making digital cameras
On 2012-02-11 16:51 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:03:14 +0000, Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote: Alan Browne writes: Trying to sell patents... What will happen after all the patents are sold? The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions without competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end. Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?). I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded, but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on bankruptcy protection: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725 Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.) I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they have first dibs on patent sale revenue? As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case activist sh's are trying to get organized: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871 As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever the hell that is - eg: wishful). As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"! The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task. However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order. "Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have more sway than the consumers who fund their investments. The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no other reason than... Its not the dickhead who has the influence. Its the people with real knowledge who most effectively swing the share prices, and I'm not necessarily talking about insider knowledge. Why the Citigroup LOC attracts curiosity. -- "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty." Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer). |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to stop making digital cameras
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:06:57 +0000, Pete A
wrote: On 2012-02-11 21:51:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:03:14 +0000, Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote: Alan Browne writes: Trying to sell patents... What will happen after all the patents are sold? The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions without competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end. Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?). I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded, but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on bankruptcy protection: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725 Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.) I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they have first dibs on patent sale revenue? As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case activist sh's are trying to get organized: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871 As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever the hell that is - eg: wishful). As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"! The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task. However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order. "Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have more sway than the consumers who fund their investments. The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no other reason than... Its not the dickhead who has the influence. Its the people with real knowledge who most effectively swing the share prices, and I'm not necessarily talking about insider knowledge. It's both (hence my ending with ...) - feedback and control theorists plus statistisions have demonstrated many times why our economic systems are inherently unstable. The current economic problems in Europe are caused by a total failure to understand the principles (which are counterintuitive). All of which sounds very impressive but generally has nothing to do with the dickhead's decisions on monday morning. Nor has it anything much to with the detailed company knowledge of financial analysts. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to stop making digital cameras
On 2012-02-11 23:14:11 +0000, Alan Browne said:
On 2012-02-11 16:03 , Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote: Alan Browne writes: Trying to sell patents... What will happen after all the patents are sold? The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions without competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end. Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?). I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded, but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on bankruptcy protection: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725 Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.) I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they have first dibs on patent sale revenue? As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case activist sh's are trying to get organized: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871 As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever the hell that is - eg: wishful). As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"! The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task. However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order. "Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have more sway than the consumers who fund their investments. Consumers do not fund investments, they provide cash flow, margin and profit while imposing liabilities on the company (warranty, delayed service, etc.). As many in business say "If it wasn't for the customers my job would be much easier." Non-consumers tend to bleed a country to death so I strongly suggest that it is only consumers that directly or indirectly fund investment. The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no other reason than... The only reasons to sell are because of an expectation of a drop, stagnation or a need for cash for something else. Overall the market is rational - at least in "steady" times. Expectation often leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy due to the way the system works. Most systems are stable during steady times. A car with no shock absorbers is stable on a flat road. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to stop making digital cameras
On 2012-02-12 01:15:36 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:06:57 +0000, Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-11 21:51:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:03:14 +0000, Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote: Alan Browne writes: Trying to sell patents... What will happen after all the patents are sold? The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions without competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end. Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?). I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded, but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on bankruptcy protection: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725 Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.) I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they have first dibs on patent sale revenue? As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case activist sh's are trying to get organized: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871 As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever the hell that is - eg: wishful). As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"! The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task. However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order. "Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have more sway than the consumers who fund their investments. The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no other reason than... Its not the dickhead who has the influence. Its the people with real knowledge who most effectively swing the share prices, and I'm not necessarily talking about insider knowledge. It's both (hence my ending with ...) - feedback and control theorists plus statistisions have demonstrated many times why our economic systems are inherently unstable. The current economic problems in Europe are caused by a total failure to understand the principles (which are counterintuitive). All of which sounds very impressive but generally has nothing to do with the dickhead's decisions on monday morning. Nor has it anything much to with the detailed company knowledge of financial analysts. Hmm. Then it must be the Tooth Fairy f'ing up most of the global economy. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to stop making digital cameras
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:32:44 +0000, Pete A
wrote: On 2012-02-12 01:15:36 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:06:57 +0000, Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-11 21:51:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:03:14 +0000, Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-11 20:06:24 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-11 14:48 , Pete A wrote: On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said: On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote: Alan Browne writes: Trying to sell patents... What will happen after all the patents are sold? The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions without competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end. Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?). I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded, but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on bankruptcy protection: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725 Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.) I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they have first dibs on patent sale revenue? As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case activist sh's are trying to get organized: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=71623871 As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever the hell that is - eg: wishful). As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"! The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task. However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order. "Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have more sway than the consumers who fund their investments. The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no other reason than... Its not the dickhead who has the influence. Its the people with real knowledge who most effectively swing the share prices, and I'm not necessarily talking about insider knowledge. It's both (hence my ending with ...) - feedback and control theorists plus statistisions have demonstrated many times why our economic systems are inherently unstable. The current economic problems in Europe are caused by a total failure to understand the principles (which are counterintuitive). All of which sounds very impressive but generally has nothing to do with the dickhead's decisions on monday morning. Nor has it anything much to with the detailed company knowledge of financial analysts. Hmm. Then it must be the Tooth Fairy f'ing up most of the global economy. Which has what to do with "The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no other reason than...". Or do you have a different idea of what constitutes a dickhead than I do? Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sony to stop making FX sensors? | C J Campbell[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 29 | August 17th 10 03:36 PM |
Canon 200mm f1.8 - why did they stop making it | rugbyphoto | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | February 17th 06 05:52 AM |
Nikon to stop making parts for 35mm | Harry | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | February 3rd 06 09:31 PM |
Konica Minolta to stop making all cameras | Neil Pugh | Digital Photography | 0 | January 19th 06 08:39 AM |