[railwayman3]

It's not at all like that. It's licensing technology over ten years.

They are making some money from an asset. Not enough for financial stability on this one deal, but it's still $10M. Complain about EK's past business decisions, sure, but this is not something to have an issue with today.

You deleted the main part of my posting from your quotation. I included this: "The cash will be used for general corporate purposes, said Gerard Meuchner, a spokesman for Eastman Kodak". (Not clear if that includes the 10 years of licensing income?) To me, this doesn't say that profits will be enhanced, new products developed, stockholders or employees benefitted or the financial problems solved, and it could be that it just all disappears into a huge hole. My views don't matter a toss to anyone, of course, but if the banks, creditors and bond-holders think the same, it will matter.

I don't have any issue with this business decision, or, indeed, any better suggestions. It was a normal press release of a standard business transaction, not a miracle. I was just speculating, once the family silver is sold to pay this week's food bill, where does the money come from to pay next week's bill? OK, if licensed out for 10 years, this particular asset is still there...but it can't be licensed a second time during that 10 years, and, at the end of that time, it will likely be obsolete unless there is continued (expensive) R&D.