This is actually one valid way to keep Kodak's name, not necessary to maintain the size of Kodak.
If all money Kodak used to spent on digital, is instead spent on keeping and extending their analog product line, Kodak may still have a chance to maintain a 7,500 employee company.
Another way to look at this: Kodak decided to spent all profit from film products on its remote inkjet business. The inkjet business, IMHO, will never be Kodak's cup of tea. Can you imagine that Kodak will beat Epson and Canon, or even HP? (If Kodak can , I guess IBM won't get rid of its PC and laptop business.) You guys probably know what kind of cameras Kodak has been marketing to American during past 50 years? Other than a few exceptions, Kodak cameras are mostly at the low end of the market, just one notch above what we currently called toy cameras . I believe Kodak will do better in chemical and film industry, but not in equipment manufacturing.
Inkjet printing does not have a great future because publishing (books, magazines, and newspapers) business is a fast shrinking business. Home printing is not expanding fast enough. Instead most images will be stored in social network websites and home computers, and displayed in digital frames and digital readers with high quality screens.
Kodak or Perez is interested in packaging material printing business - but how viable that business to Kodak is? Epson is also working on get into this field and it seems it is not easy to be established there.
Anyway I believe Kodak should not totally give up its dominant market position at analog photographic product. A full switch over to just inkjet printing will kill Kodak instead.