Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/12/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 05:31 PM 12/4/96 -0500, you wrote: >In any event, Kodak was forced to divest themselves of their processing arm >as a settlement on an ANTI-TRUST action: at the time, they owned too much >of the film, paper, processing, and chemical business to make our fascist >regulators happy, so it went out to a private company. Years later, a >different regime of fascist regulators determined it would be okay for Kodak >to control Kodachrome processing, so they bought it back. > I don't think that's quite what happened, Marc. Kodak was required to quit selling Kodachrome film and processing as a unit in the US as a result of a 1954 consent decree with the Antitrust Division, but not divest itself of the processing business itself. Kodachrome sales overseas were not affected by this consent decree, which is why Kodachrome you pick up in Europe and elsewhere has a little prepaid processing envelope in the box. The more recent divestiture of the Kodak processing labs (the Qualex spin-off) was a dim-witted business decision, not the result of pressure by either the Antitrust Division or the Environmental Enforcement Division; on the latter point (raised yesterday), if the Kodachrome processing line was violating the hazardous waste laws in Rochester, Kodak would be required to shut the down the whole operation and clean up what's left --- not flog it off to a start-up company. I think they decided to re-acquire the balance of Qualex shares they didn't own because their reputation for quality processing was suffering. But I may be guessing on the last point. Chuck Albertson Seattle, Wash.