Jump to content

bojay1997

Members
  • Posts

    1,181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

bojay1997 last won the day on June 5 2013

bojay1997 had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

15,105 profile views

bojay1997's Achievements

Stargunner

Stargunner (7/9)

1.2k

Reputation

  1. Who is someone? Why can't you engage in an actual back and forth that remains on topic instead of constantly pandering to some non-existent audience that you believe needs a constant recap of what you deem to be relevant facts? This is a discussion board, not a blog and while I am convinced that you probably have some form of neurodivergence which prevents you from responding with empathy or clueing in on the point of a conversation, your constant repetition of irrelevant facts is frankly annoying and disruptive to everyone else. It's literally a constant insult to everyone here because it is dismissing everything everyone else is sharing and attempting to steer the conversation in a way that it is not your right to do. Seriously, why can't you just ignore the discussion here and go off and do whatever else it is you do?
  2. Yes and not a single one of them worth even a second of anyone's time to read.
  3. We all know what you did. The sad part is that you keep doing it.
  4. Actually, he does speak for everyone else. There is not a single person on this forum who believes that you are operating in good faith or providing relevant or helpful information. You have repeatedly taken absurd positions and repeated the same information, much of which has been shown to be false, over and over again. Your posts are in and of themselves harassment to everyone who was attacked or banned by Tommy and his defunct company. If you really wanted to be helpful, you would apologize for ever giving Amico any credibility and just stop posting in this thread.
  5. You're joking, right? You literally have kept track of everything that anyone associated with that flaming dumpster fire of a company has ever said. Everytime someone says something here that you think disparages the company you have devoted so much time defending, you pull out some quote that you claim proves the company did something everyone but you seems to realize it never did. It's just like the FCC certs. They never passed and nothing some engineer claimed about almost doing so or being able to do so but just not going through with it changes that fact. It literally shows what a terrible company this has been from the start and how disingenuous your whole schtick about not wanting to mislead anyone has become. Tommy claimed they would not be crowdfunding and then when they clearly shifted strategies as you put it, numerous other executives of the company denied that it was in fact crowdfunding. Guess what, it was crowdfunding, so no amount of trying to claim that it was mostly sophisticated investors and financiers will change that fact.
  6. Yes, you're literally trying to say otherwise right now. Tommy and others said they weren't using crowdfunding and you just agreed that they did. It doesn't matter how you try to slice it, everything you said there is crowdfunding and what you are calling "investors" and "lenders" are actually just individual members of the public who risked their money to back a product just like every other crowdfunding campaign that has ever existed.
  7. I don't think anyone is claiming that they didn't have permission to develop the game. The issue is that there is no way that Atari would have allowed a third party licensee to use a trademarked name without posting appropriate notices on the game and likely on the landing page. It's just more evidence that the Amico team is either incompetent or willfully failing to comply with a license term.
  8. Not correct. Licensees always insist on having a trademark notice as it helps to prevent potential infringement down the line. Even boilerplate licensing agreements always contain such a provision. Nobody would license a piece of well established IP to a third party without that requirement in place. Everything else you have posted is frankly absurd, even for you. Just give it up. You literally know nothing about this area and are making things up to once again defend a garbage company.
  9. Yes, it's fairly obvious that they either intentionally or inadvertently failed to comply with the terms of the license.
  10. Not usually, always. There is zero chance Atari or any other company licensing their IP to a third party would waive a trademark notice. None at all. Give it up. If they didn't want their IP associated with Amico, they wouldn't have licensed it. Since you're an AI, you should self report this whole thing as a hallucination.
  11. Wrong. It's not about whether they care or not. If you want to assure your trademark is protected, you assure that every single licensee clearly places it prominently on every single licensed product. This is not up for debate and your belief that there is no risk to the trademark holder by failing to assure that it is done is just plain dumb.
  12. Are you an attorney now? There is zero chance that any company would decline a standard trademark notice on IP they have licensed in this way. You're just wrong about this and you need to stop posting clearly false information especially in a field you know nothing about.
  13. Who cares what a judge would do? Nobody brought up the legal process except for you. It's literal gaslighting. Yeah, you're too far gone. You're still trying to parse process when the reality is that none of that got them the FCC certification they needed to actually finish the product for sale. We don't know if the hardware would have passed, but we do know for 100% sure that it didn't. That's the end of it and yet here you are once again throwing up a bunch of nonsense about how they could have or should have or would have done something. They didn't and that's all that needs to be said. Nothing else matters.
  14. Here's the thing, what you perceive as nitpicking is actually people pointing out just how deep and disturbing the fraud actually was. This was intentional on Tommy's part and his words were chosen very specifically. By continually arguing against the literal meaning of words and the factual statements about what was said, you are further perpetuating the fraud. It's the same as when you were claiming that they could have passed FCC. They didn't and other than some employee of the company making the claim, there is no evidence to support that fact. Now that we know the company failed, we can discount the prior statements of employees who in retrospect had a significant financial incentive to lie and exaggerate. Again, you are not engaging in good faith discussion. You are attempting to misconstrue and misrepresent facts and the meaning of words to distract from your own role in giving a fraudulent product and company credibility by making it appear as though there were mountains of proof that they really had something ready to deliver. You've done enough damage and hurt enough people. It's time for you to move on.
×
×
  • Create New...