But Fuji a similar counter arguments relating to Kodak in U.S. and states bluntly that Kodak’s charges are a clear case of the pot calling the kettle back.
(a) What was the critical catalyst that led Kodak to start taking the Japanese market seriously? (b) From the evidence given in the case do you think Kodak’s charges of unfair trading practices against Fuji are valid? Support your answer.
CASE 2 (20 Marks)
Two Senior executives of world’s largest firms with extensive holdings outside the home country speak. Company A : “We are a multinational firm. We distribute our products in about 100 countries. We manufacture in over 17 countries and do research and development in three countries. We look at all new investment projects both domestic and overseas using exactly the same criteria”. The execution from company A continues, “ of course the most of the key ports in our subsidiaries are held by home country nationals. Whenever replacements for these men are sought, it is the practice, if not the policy, to look next to you at the lead office and pick some one (usually a home country...