Re: Speaking of KODAK

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> By "our tools" I am referring to the commonly used tools which all of us
> consider as "our own" because they are available for our choice to use.
> Neither you nor I actually designed or built these tools. Yet, they are
> humanity's tools. Our tools. There is frequent discussion of new ideas for
> 3D and the quest goes on. It's disturbing that the specific combination of
> features that may make a more ideal 3D system may have already been invented
> and thrown away because it's true value wasn't recognized.

It usually isn't thrown  away.

1.  If Kodak got a patent on it, and didn't develop it commercially, then
    they have spent their money for the invention, only to give it "to humanity"
    for free.  How they did it is in the patent office, with full public disclosure.
    You can get a copy for a few dollars.  When it expires, the whole world
    has it for free at Kodak expense.  Stereo photography has been going on for
    a couple centuries, or at least 1.5 centuries.  The time for Kodak's possible
    patents to expire is but a small moment, historically speaking.  

2.  If it *really* has great true economic value, then a group of employees,
    or perhaps some outside group will spin-off a new company to take advantage
    of the technology.  Kodak would get either equity in the new company or be
    be paid outright for the technology rights by the new company's backers.
    I think at least half of high-tech companies around were started this way.
    If you think it's a golden goose that would yield a return-on-investment
    sufficiently high in relationship to the risk involved, then go for it!!!


However, if one wants Kodak to spend big bucks to produce a big money loser 
so the few of us on this mailing list can have great deals, especially on
the liquidation equipment -- I can't see complaining that Kodak doesn't 
want to do that (even though I wouldn't mind helping to cleanup the
leftovers myself :-).

I don't think corporations like Kodak *MUST* become an economic martyr 
to be politically correct.  It's okay if they choose to, but I can't
complain if they don't.

Almost *everything* we use in common everyday use isn't anywhere near
what the current-technology state of the art can do.  Except possibly
for Warren Buffett or Bill Gates.  Their common utensils may be closer
to the state of the art.

If one thinks the technology can be profitable, then write up a business
plan and see what kind of deal can be cut with Kodak!  Go for it!  I'd
be happy to be one of the first customers, so long as the selling price
is nice and low.

Mike K.


P.S.- Don't get me wrong!  If Kodak has a technology that can *economically*
      produce a successful 3D photography "revolution", then I think they should
      be encouraged to do so, or pushed to allow a third party do so.  I think it'd be
      a great idea.  However I also think that Kodak should be allowed to keep
      whatever it paid for.  It's not ours, it's theirs.  If they patented it 
      then they give up their ownership after a while.  If they didn't then 
      anybody else can re-invent it without paying them a cent.  It's much easier
      to invent something once you know it's inventable (speaking as an Engineer...)!




------------------------------

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1637
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************