Correspondence regarding the Kingsway premises; specification of works between Kodak Ltd and Sir John Burnet and Partners and W. E. Riley and Glanfield; correspondence dated 1929 and drawings for an extension of five or six floors of Kingsway. Correspondence in 1923 notes a pressing need for ...
Notice No. 682 dated 29 September 1972, Central London Premises; memo dated 13 March 1972, 65 Kingsway WC2; memo dated 12 June 1972, Registered Office of the Company; a set of colour photographs showing the empty Kingsway premises in 1972. 65 Kingsway was vacated finally by Kodak on 27 Octob...
Correspondence and reports relating to the formation of Kodak-Glanzstoff, including photographs and plans of the Cöpenicker factory; memorandum on the history of the share capital of Kodak AG; an extended report by W. G. Bent on the Cöpenicker Factory. Kodak took over the factory of Glanzfilm...
United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, The Eastman Dry Plate and Film Company (EDPFC) vs. E. and H. T. Anthony and Co, Edward Anthony, President and Treasurer, and Vincent M. Wilcox, Vice-President, 128pp. A transcript of the court proceedings up to the 23 June 1888 adjourn...
'Is the Photographic Trade becoming a Monopoly?', The Photographic Dealer, February 1901, pp. 28–31. A response to new terms of business introduced by Kodak limiting the products Kodak dealers could sell. Subject(s): Corporate; Competition; Sales
Proof of Charles Thomas Robinson's statement in Pathé of France Limited vs. Mausbridge; Pathé Against +++; extract from The Bioscope, 3 December 1930. Corporate; Pathé ; Film