Playing catch-up on posts, so this is a bit "delayed".

As for the "Kodak does not make its own microprocessors, so is seeking indemnification from its suppliers.",

all I can figure is that Kodak was pursuing inclusion of patent indemnification clauses in all its chip supplier contracts. This would result in them no longer considered infringing, and they would only have been really on the hook for infringement for the period from which they were "notified" by TPL/Alliacense to the point in time where they were using indemnified chips exclusively. Thus a small(er) window of infringement, small cost for a license for that period - or hope TPL/Alliacense just "goes away" due to a much smaller reward. Then the question becomes whether their suppliers are willing to take on the liability for Kodak and other infringers alone (and a nice big bright spotlight hits them). If they see the risk, they'll charge accordingly for inclusion of the clause. Then Kodak has to re-assess (which is most cost effective - indemnification or a license and no worries about the future).

Seems a round-about way of trying to deal with it. As soon as they hit up their suppliers for the clause, the suppliers will go on high alert, I would think.

FWIW,

SGE