I've been thinking about this and discussing it with a number of people. Here is one thing that may be of interest to you all:


Read the last two sentences, please. The second from last has not been noted here and is very significant.

If Kodak continues in the film business, they sit on valuable property and sell a load of film and make a good income for the company. If they exit, as I stated elsewhere, we have either a 'new' film company, or a purchase by a group of investors.

In the latter two cases, we have to consider that any new company formed around the film units of Kodak or an outright purchase would have to contend with the problem outined in the sentence I refer to above.

Of course, a solely film company would have more interests in the customer but they would have some real problems.

As one wag said in the paper here, and which I quoted elsewhere, "Kodak may want to sell the film business but who would buy it".

Considering the reference above, I think this just might be true! This reporting explains one of the major reasons. Those who have commented to me either way may want to consider the words of this article carefully and especially the impact of that second from last sentence.

Kodak may or may not stay in the film business. The decision appears to be balanced on a razors edge.