Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;V. Kurt Bellman, post: 2518307, member: 71723&quot;]In the 1960&#039;s, when the case began, there weren&#039;t even viable alternatives to Kodak paper and chemicals for a big operation in the lab business. Even Fuji&#039;s U.S. operations were in their infancy then. They only became even semi-competitive in the mid-1970&#039;s and got serious by the 1980&#039;s. There WAS competition from lab EQUIPMENT makers who were viable against Kodak&#039;s capital equipment, but that was never an issue in the case. Fotomat wanted people to believe their processing was DONE BY Kodak, and it wasn&#039;t, nor was it even particularly good at the time. Photo processing and ESPECIALLY printing, had MASSIVE human input, and for the time period before the 1-Hour lab era, Kodak&#039;s printing and processing was noticeably superior to even the casual observer. They simply trained their printer operators better.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in