[COMPUTER SPACE, PONG, AND SPACE RACE AUCTION @ RR AUCTION!!!]

The current bids on that Pong and Computer Space are outrageous.  I've never seen a non-working Pong go for that much and certainly not one that isn't all original.  Even the Computer Space is well beyond market value given that the television/monitor is not the original.

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

15 minutes ago, mr_me said:

What you said I said has a different meaning than what I said, doesn't matter it's not a quote. And it happens a lot here.

 

Not paying what you owe because you have no money is very different than arbitrarily not paying. Whether it's just a failed startup or mismanagement, bankruptcy often results in people being out money. The deposits were a contract and they were in breach of that contract is what I said. They still owe the money, they said they still owe the money, is what I said. Prompt refunds upon request has to be a priority is what I said. There's no excuse for not responding to a request, is what I said. And facts like they did issue refunds until they ran out of money is relevant otherwise someone might think they just always refused refund requests.

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?        

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

6 hours ago, mr_me said:

More than ten thousand comments in the atariage forums for all to see.

Yes and not a single one of them worth even a second of anyone's time to read.  

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

5 hours ago, mr_me said:

Not true. I never hung out with those people, never thought he was "that guy", and never said those things. If he's going to make stuff up about another forum user like myself, what else is he making up.

We all know what you did.  The sad part is that you keep doing it.  

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

4 hours ago, mr_me said:

On the contrary, I pointed out that there are two parts to fcc compliance.  The company claimed to have one part, and the fcc database screenshot that people like to repeatedly show is for the other part that their engineers are not claiming.  Maybe you know this but don't see how you speak for everyone else, and again don't see it as defending anything but clarity. In some cases I may have fell for some trolling and should have ignored certain posts. I can tell you that this conversation you've initiated isn't adding anything to the discussion.

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.  

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

4 hours ago, mr_me said:

Why write that I agreed that they did and at the same time say I said otherwise. It only misleads people who don't read what I actually said.

 

Now regarding what the former CEO and others said, I don't keep track of everything that other people say. I do remember the former CEO saying, early on, that they wouldn't be crowdfunding. But that was before their VC investor funding didn't go as planned, and they shifted strategies.  Even in that context he was talking about not wanting customers to have to preorder in order to get a system.

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.  

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

2 hours ago, mr_me said:

Have I said otherwise.  But what kind of crowdfunding, because some people might only think of Indiegogo or Kickstarter style customer based rather than investor based.  And even their preorders were different than typical Kickstarters with deposits being a fraction of the purchase price compared to full prepayment in a typical kickstarter. That wouldn't have been quite enough to cover manufacturing let alone games development, systems development, marketing.  About 97% of funding was from investors and lenders.

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.    

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

3 hours ago, mr_me said:

 

 

The Fig/Republic revenue share crowdfunding is investor funding, rather than customer funding like a typical Kickstarter.  That was the differentiator.  There was some money from customer deposits, but that being only about 3% of funding, the project was essentially investor funded.

 

 

So you agree that it was crowdfunding.  Good to know.  

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

3 hours ago, Flojomojo said:

What if they traded the M Network game licenses to Atari in exchange for permission to proceed with their preposterous Missile Command port? With stock noises from the mind of Tommy Tallarico. 

 

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.    

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

2 hours ago, mr_me said:

Usually the licencee wants to mention the trademark owner, is what I said. That's because it can add value. In this case the programmer preparing the store page didn't think to do it, likely without oversight. It's up to Atari SA to contact IE to have that changed.  They originally licensed these titles to IE for remakes because they wanted the royalties. Things have changed since then, and now there's a lot of negativity around the product.

 

It could be that the Mnetwork rights were compensation for royalties that never materialised.

 

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.  

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

29 minutes ago, Flojomojo said:

I just think it's weird to see an Atari product sold by someone else without the usual boilerplate attached. 

 

 

Those are some examples I found in a minute of poking around recent new product pages. I don't know have any visibility into Intellivision's arrangement with Atari, nor do I particularly care -- other than it's funny to see all the different ways Amico can screw things up. Intellivision's failure to attribute IP ownership in a mobile store page is not their greatest fault, not by a long shot. 

Yes, it's fairly obvious that they either intentionally or inadvertently failed to comply with the terms of the license.  

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

22 hours ago, mr_me said:

The old xbox game got good reviews. The thing bringing down the average were complaints of the thumbstick being a poor control. Others said it's too difficult which is not surprising for a classic arcade remake.  Some of the graphics are a bit odd, you're not commanding missiles.

 

Crediting the trademark owner is between the licensor and licensee. The licensor might not want their company name on a product. Usually the licensee wants to mention the trademark owner but not necessarily.

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.  

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

50 minutes ago, mr_me said:

Either way, Atari SA may not care to have their company name on this product so that's between the two parties. As long as the name is being used with their permission the IP is protected.

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.  

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

42 minutes ago, mr_me said:

If there is a licence agreement between the two parties the IP has been protected. If that agreement has expired, they can sue them. However, it's not a publishing of an Atari SA works. The copyrights to the code, graphics, and sounds belong to either IE or Stainless Games.

 

And regarding the old xbox game, it did get good reviews. I also said it got poor reviews.

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.  

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

1 hour ago, mr_me said:

I don't think a judge would consider these comments about being in retail fraudulent unless the company didn't in fact have such an agreement with retailers.  If they passed unintended RF emissions testing as their engineers claim and have the lab report than that would meet fcc requirements for that portion.  That portion does not require submission in the fcc database.  The part that does is the intentional emitters i.e. Wifi and Bluetooth.  And since they are software adjusted, they could have done that without another hardware revision.  That's why their engineer said it would have passed that certification, which was said after the layoffs.

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.  

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

5 hours ago, mr_me said:

 

 

Are your certain they didn't say it.  Regardless that's how I understood it.  The thing wasn't released at the time this was being talked about and obviously they would have to have an agreement with the stores before they can show up in those stores; that's not hypothetical.  And I did point out that we don't know if they actually had an agreement, which is the more relevant point.  As I said earlier this seems like nitpicking with what they meant versus taking what they said literally.  It definitely needed to be said, a must for the discussion, which is why I said it.

 

 

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.  

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

5 hours ago, mr_me said:

I basically said the same thing you said, that they could refer to an agreement with retailers.

 

But they didn't...which is the point.  You came in here and presented a hypothetical which didn't happen and acted like it somehow justified the lie they told.  You have been doing this the whole time which is why people are so tired of your ridiculous posts.  You literally contributed nothing to this discussion and yet felt the need to present some alternate reality of what could have happened.  It didn't, so why did you even bring it up?

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

1 hour ago, mr_me said:

If they had an agreement with a retailer, like Gamestop for example, to be in stores they could refer to that.  They wouldn't know what agreements Atari SA had and we wouldn't know what agreements they had.

They literally were never in retail though.  Words have specific meanings.  You seem to continually come here and post things that are factually incorrect by twisting the actual meaning of words.  If he had said "we have a deal with Gamestop to carry our product once it ships and they are taking preorders", assuming there was such a deal, that would be accurate.  That's very different than saying "Atari VCS isn't in retail, we are".  Serious question, is English a second language for you?  It seems like it might be given your inability to grasp the fundamentals of language use.   

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

1 hour ago, mr_me said:

I was one of the people that questioned his claims, one of the first here.  Harassment stops when people decide to stop harassing.

Wow, now that's some revisionist history.  You literally took everything Tommy and his team said at face value.  In fact, you still continue to quote and cite their words as if they are gospel.  You really need to step away and spend some time thinking about your role in all of this.  You were certainly one of the individuals that gave this fraud credibility and I have never once seen you express any skepticism for anything that was claimed.  Even now you seem dedicated to repeatedly attempting to argue and contradict the points being made here as if it will somehow vindicate your lack of rational analysis in the first place.  Look, I think we can all admit that Tommy fooled a lot of people.  It's just sad that you continue to be fooled and have never taken any responsibility for your role in the harassment others suffered while you stood ready to attack anyone who dared question.      

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

4 hours ago, mr_me said:

I'm not the one making the claim, but it would be interesting to know how difficult it would be to port a Wii project to an Arm based system.  It would make sense to use a developer that has experience with that type of game.  If the developer can build off of previous work I would expect them to.

 

I'm just pointing out that at one time the Fig site was how they were taking international preorders.

 

They didn't take in that many preorders.  Back in 2020 They were telling everyone it wasn't necessary, that there'd be plenty of systems available when it releases.  Looking at their numbers it seemed the company was just as well CEO and board funded until the revenue share investments came in.

 

Harassment continues.  Associating people with things they had nothing to do with.

Yes, their crowdfunding failed, just like the rest of their laughable business plan.  Also, you're not being harassed.  Whether you have the self awareness or not to realize it, you were a part of the harassment of a lot of people who rightfully doubted the fraudulent claims of Tommy and his shills.  You owe everyone here an apology, but I doubt you have the humility to ever provide one.  

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

17 minutes ago, Matt_B said:

Tommy just wanted the money.

I'm pretty sure that it was only the asking of questions that he found objectionable, not the linking.

Sure, but the linking was like a giant flashing sign to Tommy reminding him of his false claims about how he would fund the Amico.  His ego blinded him to the fact that he could have simply said "you know, this whole process turned out to be a lot more expensive and complex than we anticipated and maybe we don't know everything and we need help, so we are now turning to crowdfunding".  While some people may have focused on the initial lie, I suspect many would have understood and appreciated his candor.  Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to have ever been anyone at Amico that understood basic communications or the concept of being authentic and open with your potential customer base.   

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

2 hours ago, mr_me said:

Why would they have an issue with linking the fig site.  They were directing people there as a place for preorders.

Yes, to a crowdfunding site that was actively crowdfunding for a console that Tommy claimed was not being crowdfunded.  You're right that it seems ridiculous that Tommy would have had an issue with it, but sadly he did.  Maybe you could ask him why that was since you like to make sure everyone is posting only the most thoroughly vetted facts.

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

7 hours ago, Wayler said:

I'm thinking zombies. And a rail shooter. It's so generic and last century that it would be a great fit for the Amico. Plus the actual way you can plop the hair off a Playmobil figure to reveal a vacuous half-skull leans right into zombie-territory. And as the figure can pretty much only stand still with arms straight forward, well there's your awkward zombie-walk.

 

But on second thought, this might be too much creativity for the Amico. Isn't there an existing flash game someone could just port over?

I mean there are literally tons of existing Playmobil video games and a bunch on iOS.  I'm sure the plan was to just to port one of those.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playmobil_Interactive

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

27 minutes ago, mr_me said:

I agree with what you're saying but it doesn't change the fact that it does get labeled exit strategy in these things, and there's a reason for that.  Investors wants to profit from their investment and selling their shares, at some point, is an obvious way to do that.

 

 

 

Okay, not necessarily, but is the case for a lot of companies. In this case no one person has a majority of shares anyway so it would take a minimum two or three people to establish control.  All the major shareholders were on the board of directors.

 

 

 

 

Just stop.  You've literally undercut both of the initial statements that you claimed were facts.  You're not qualified to make the statements you are making.  Either take the time to get the appropriate education and experience or just stop.  You're wasting everyone's time.  

[Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’]

38 minutes ago, mr_me said:

 

Maybe if the former ceo had consulted the board of directors on some major decisions, he'd have been ceo a little longer.  Or maybe there was a difference of opinion on a major decision. The board of directors establish the direction of the company and the CEO's job is to carry that out. In this case the ceo is one of the directors. And yes majority shares do control the company.

Not necessarily.  A company can structure its management and control structure in any lawful manner to which the various owners or investors agree.  Just because one of the owners or investors controls the majority of the shares does not mean they necessarily control the company.  These are also different classes of shares that can be issued and some do not have any voting power or control over the company.  Again, your lack of knowledge here is obvious.  This is first year business school knowledge that you are getting wrong.  Please stop making false claims because you clearly don't know what you are talking about.