Entire Webster campus to be sold and then leased. Let's think back to the now empty Xerox Square tower in downtown Rochester. Watch out for that iceberg!
14 replies (most recent on top)
Fake products are not identical they are badly made copies that don’t work as well or in some cases not at all. IP has nothing nothing to do with that. The Chinese aren’t bothered about getting the composition just right, or having an identical copy of a Xerox toner plant - that’s too expensive. All they care about is the flooding the market with cheaply made fake rubbish. Xerox has nothing worth copying of note anymore, that was done 40 years ago, that’s why no one cares.
- 4zub: reverse engineering of toner materials is not that easy. The IP we have around toner composition and mfg process is actually easier route to go for Chinese. Xerox attitude has been “it takes a specialist to get any value out of that IP” and discounting foreign espionage. That attitude may be responsible for the burgeoning counterfeit toner market.
Since Xerox doesn’t do anything to address IP theft, toner profitability and market share is continue to be a challenge. .....,
Toner is old, even EA is 20 years old, the golden era is over, sorry but tech moves on, packaging print is huge, that's where the money is, transactional and publishing is diminishing, but Xerox seems to be incapable of punching into that market.
What’s it got to go with having a CISO? How are they going to stop Chinese companies reverse engineering a toner product to create a cheap inferior version, they are not inside the company stealing our IP, it’s a case of taking a product and copying it.
Since Xerox doesn’t do anything to address IP theft, toner profitability and market share is continue to be a challenge. This obviously affects Webster.
The root problem is after-market counterfeiters are eating toner profits alive.
Allowing IP theft by doing nothing about protecting against it - maybe the new CISO will have an answer, if they hire one.
Only someone who needs a significant loss write-off would buy the Webster campus.
Most companies are reducing their footprint or leaving Rochester and New York State.
Rehabbing is sadly less appealing than new construction due to it being much less cookie-cutter meaning costs are variable depending on what is found/revealed during the work.
There are a few buildings that have been empty for years because it costs too much to tear them down. A family friend was involved in the "deconstruction" of a building at Kodak before it was dynamited. Asbestos abatement, plumbing fixtures, pipes, electrical, etc. all have to be removed. The buildings need to be down to bare walls before they can be torn down.
Then there is the ground contamination in some parts of the complex as mentioned on this site before, and environmental approval before the ground could be returned to the marketplace.
On the other hand, a dilapidated building at 845 Salt Road next to the Xerox complex, which Xerox used to rent, was rehabbed and is now available for lease, so someone sees market value in the area.
The unspoken alternative of bulldozing is perhaps the best option in my view. Removes Webster and Monroe County tax liabilities, allows potential accounting benefits but also reduces aggregate asset value. This last part is either a negative (company is worth less) or a positive (less liability and maint costs).
Depending on your viewpoint, XRX is already massively inflated (over valued) so reduction of net asset value makes that problem worse.
Xerox would have to sell the buildings at a steep discount. They are old, outdated, and need a lot of work. Not to mention there is a glut of old empty buildings already in Rochester.
And new landlords will be leery of Xerox after how they broke the lease at Xerox Square.
OP either is spouting BS FUD or can add more. The square, although owned in the past, was under lease and XRX simply exited that lease. Webster is owned. Plans already established to market various bldgs or the entire west campus, but this will be lease or buy, depending on conditions and offers. As noted, not great appeal to buyers or lessees.
Perhaps more photonics efforts
I don’t believe it. Who would possibly buy the entire campus?
I don't believe it. Who would possibly want to lease out any part of the Webster campus?