Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/08/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Why wouldn't it be the case? Why not port the recipe? Tri-X itself has more than one formula and has been produced in different locations and countries. The new owner will decide what the product is or isn't just as Kodak decides now; that's what ownership means. This kind of thing is done all the time in industry. Jeep's, except for their outward appearance, are 100% Chrysler products. Ralph Loren sells his brand name as a 'product' by itself. If a toothpick manufacturer paid enough for the license, he'd be able to market Ralph Loren toothpicks. Freestyle has a house brand black and white film the trade name of which has been constant for many years, but the manufacturer has changed at least once. On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Marty Deveney <benedenia at gmail.com> wrote: > > This simply isn't the case. The physical machinery is as much part of > the product as the chemical formula. If Kodak finds a buyer for the > Personalized Imaging business they simply cannot port the formulae to > another facility; it would be cheaper to buy the Kodak plant and keep > making it there. The implementation costs of making "Tri-X" somewhere > else would be huge, to the point of being prohibitive in the current > climate. > > Marty > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- -Lew Schwartz