OTOH it's been a nice few days for anybody who bought the stock when it hit $1.55 in March, or even between then and this week. Why anybody would have is beyond me. But cheers to them.

Isn't ResistHoo correct when he says the chemical portion of the company was long ago spun off as Eastman? Isn't it true that if this little $347M (after a 200% bump) company wants to get into the "chemical" or "pharmaceutical" business it's going to have to be buying the chemicals from somebody instead of producing/manufacturing them? Finally isn't he correct when he says they are, since the bankruptcy, a printer company?

As to the CEO, he can say what he wants about what Kodak wants to be, but that doesn't make them that--yet.

I ask all this knowing you know WAY more about all these things than I do. Your vociferance piqued my interest and made me look up about five minutes worth of reading, so apologies in advance if these are stupid questions.