Jump to content

bojay1997

Members
  • Posts

    1,182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by bojay1997

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. Yes and not a single one of them worth even a second of anyone's time to read.
  4. We all know what you did. The sad part is that you keep doing it.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Yes, it's fairly obvious that they either intentionally or inadvertently failed to comply with the terms of the license.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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?
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...