Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
I lived in a suburb of Rochester (where kodak is) in the mid 90s. Such a huge percentage of the area population worked there you almost certainly knew more than one person who did.
Maybe it'll turn into Flint

But it's not like cars started using anti-fuel.
Camera - Film = massive waste reduction.
Like a Boeing 747 that runs on rainbows.
Or peeing in a Brita.
Failure to realize that, or at least harbor an underground committee prepared to wage war on the digital battlefront once it finally began to compete with film (particularly in dynamic range), is overtly stupid.
Great business practice, don't get me wrong. Kings of the film world, truly.
If nobody knows film better than you, how do you not infuse much of that knowledge into the digital world??
Canon/Zeiss/Nikon/Pansonic all interpret color intensities and contrast differently.
Technicolor worked with Canon and released their picture profile to greatly reduce the punch that causes increased artifacts and loss of black information...FOR FREE. Don't know why they would approve something that could very well mean their undoing, but I love them for it.
If Kodak approached a similar route and licensed their "look" (through S-Log-like software) to cam companies of their choosing, they'd leach digital profits whilst stubbornly dragging their heals with attempts to flaccidly filibuster fools into spending half a million dollars (or 500 gh2's) to shoot 35mm.
It's silly.
And Canon/Nikon/Sony/Samsung/Sigma/etc/etc are laughing... All the way to the bank.