Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’

[Cebus Capucinis]

With regard to the definition of fraud (which typically is a civil tort but can be criminal in certain contexts, i.e. Theranos), it is usually governed by common law and while a regulatory context may change the contours a bit, generally it's got nine elements needed: (1) a representation of fact; (2) which is false; (3) which is also material; (4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth; (8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and (9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury.

 

I'll defer to people who actually are involved in litigation, as I'm.....very not....but my understanding of fraud is that the bar to prove it is incredibly high, particularly with elements 4 and 5, namely knowledge and intent. It's not enough that the representer SUSPECT it's not true or MAYBE it's not true. The representer generally has to have actual knowledge the statement is false.

 

The bigger hurdle is intent. It's very, very hard to PROVE intent. This often involves providing evidence of almost literal statements of "I hope you give me this money so I can blow it because I'm definitely not making that footbath" or similar. Statements like "10x projected return on investment" don't typically rise to proof of intent - the representer may be puffing up the product but does intend to make maximum returns, for example.

 

In Amicoland, are they skeevy? Sure. Have they produced nothing? Sure. Have they broken tons of promises? Absolutely. But are they guilty of fraud itself? Maybe, and I won't speculate in that regard, but it would be quite an uphill battle to prove it and would cost far more than anyone's purported losses to do it.

 

Also I cringe and laugh at the idea that TT seems to be under the impression that the SEC is the "anti-defamation police" that goes around putting people who badmouth investments in jail or something. 🤡🩰

[number6]

1 minute ago, Bill Loguidice said:

I'm not aware of any public proclamation of date of acquisition. That's not something typically publicly discussed, i.e., contract signing date. Are you trying to establish timing around when they did their first public announcement in forever and the signing of this deal? I'm sure that and the M Network property sale are significant contributors to the "need" for that public announcement. Pretty sad, actually, that it's implied their hand was forced rather than doing the right thing and just providing regular updates regardless of what they were, but I guess that's indicative of this whole fiasco.

We've posted about timeline before in this thread, so my interest is for sake of accuracy. The folks maintaining the Wiki would surely see use for dates as well.

I'm not trying to poke about re:contracts. Companies will often state when an agreement was made with details to follow.

 

#6

[number6]

20 minutes ago, number6 said:

We've posted about timeline before in this thread, so my interest is for sake of accuracy. The folks maintaining the Wiki would surely see use for dates as well.

I'm not trying to poke about re:contracts. Companies will often state when an agreement was made with details to follow.

 

#6

I should explain why I am confused here, and maybe someone can offer a logical explanation.

I'll refer to the line again from BBG

Quote

BBG Entertainment announced on May 24th, 2023 the acquisition of the ASTROSMASH® and SHARK! SHARK!™ intellectual properties with all rights pertaining thereto, from Intellivision® Entertainment, LLC

We know from past discussion here plus the link:

Suspended LLC

 

And we also know:

Quote

When your business has been suspended or forfeited, it is not in good standing and loses its rights, powers, and privileges to do business in California.

Source

 

Given the above how could this transaction have taken place if erm...not allowed.

 

I've seen this before at Amiga where it entered court records, so I know "it's a thing". Here's an example prior to being able to make asset transfer:

Source

Note: taxes need to be paid and LLC or Inc. restored before you can do business as indicated

 

Any input on this is appreciated.

 

#6

Edited May 25, 2023 by number6
Added reference

[MrBeefy]

1 hour ago, number6 said:

@thread

 

We know from the PR and About pages at BBG:

Did I miss reading something? I'd like to know the date of acquisition as opposed to when it was announced.

 

#6

I thought I read somewhere that it happened in February. Will try and find where.

[Tommy2D]

15 hours ago, MrTrust said:

Person A:  Okay, well, this isn't supposed to be the S&M freak console, is it?  The whole pitch behind it is it would be family-friendly, and having to take 50,000 volts to the junk every time I miss is A) painful, and B) extremely weird.  How am I going to play this with Grandma?  She doesn't even have balls.

 

 

A Kink-oriented console would have a much better defined target market and purpose than the Amico.  

Edited May 25, 2023 by Tommy2D

[MrTrust]

12 hours ago, mr_me said:

I said a number of things in defense of the game.  You can go back and read it, it's concise and straightforward.

 

And it's nuts, mr_me.  That's what I'm trying to illustrate here.  You do understand that when you're "just describing some things I saw in the game" that you're not telling any of us anything we don't already see, right?  You weren't informing kevtris, or by extension myself, of anything; you were disputing the points we were making.  You were defending the game.

If the game is not attractive to families it is a failure even on its own terms.  To defend the game is to stake out the position that it is not a failure.  It's not necessary for you to explicitly say the game will be attractive to families because it is implicit in your defense of it.  Like it or not, Shark! Shark! was supposed to be their big tentpole family fun-on-the-couch game.  They never shut up about Shark! Shark!  Half the footage of that Texas event was of people playing Shark! Shark!  The second "deep dive" video they did was of Shark! Shark!  They showcased Shark! Shark! way more frequently than Breakout, or Moon Patrol, or Finnegan Fox or even the vaunted Cornhole.  This was one of the primary attractions they were peddling for the machine on the basis that it was a Super Awesome Family Entertaining or whatever their stupid acronym was.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm 40.  I got 2 kids.  I got the 1.5 story Cape Cod in the suburbs with the SUV so we can fit everyone in to watch the drive-in movies on Saturday night in the summer.  We eat dinner together at the table on Saturday night and go to church on Sunday morning.  I had an Intellivision in my room when I was 4 years old.  Still have several old Atari systems and even an NES and Genesis in the attic.  They want a demographic to sell this thing to, I'm the guy, and I'm telling you that I can see, without even having to pick up a controller, that this thing sucks.

 

Yeah, maybe if you handed this to some kid at the Crayola place, they will think it's neat.  Kids are not discerning.  You could download any freebie shovelware crap to your phone, hand it to a kid, and amuse them with it.  They're not going to get them off the bench and actually wanting to play it, and you're not going to get me either with something that looks as plays like that.
 

12 hours ago, mr_me said:

And you seemed to agree about sticking to the core gameplay rather than expanding to other game types.

 

No, I don't.  I don't agree that anything about this thing makes for a good purchase.  Yes, it's possible to rework and recontextualize old games and old game mechanics in ways that make them communicable to a new audience.  I cited an example.  There are others.  Shark! Shark! is not one of them.

 

Yes, I would much rather see a revamping of the game to include co-op boss fighting.  Say, the giant squid spawns little squids that ink up the screen.  The kids have to eat the little squids.  The dad has to bite the squid on the head, which triggers and attack with all the tentacles that the dad has to dodge, and when the squid gets exhausted, the dad and the kid both have to bite one of the tentacles at the same time.  I would like to have seen specific challenges, maybe.  Complete this level against the hammerhead, but don't eat any blue fish.  Everybody swim through this scrolling coral maze without getting trapped.  Longest survivor wins.  Whatever; it takes two seconds thought to come up with all kinds of ideas that would have made the game worth a second look.  None of these things would have been all that difficult to implement.

 

Then there's the fact that it just looks like butt.  This is very obviously the Family Dollar version of Finding Nemo, a film which is now 20 years old and has been cashed in on by every cheap back bencher toy and movie company that to see cutes-y poo clownfish characters is to signal really hard that this is dollar store rip-off stuff we're dealing with.  If you're going to put out something that looks like a back bench XBLA game from 2003, you need to include something in that package to make it attractive to people who know better than to shell out good money on shovelware crap.  That means have interesting features.  That means include enough different modes and levels that two people can play it on camera for more than 20 minutes without looking like they've already exhausted all there is to see with it.  Make it look like something I'm not going to dread having to sit through if my kid actually did take a liking to it.

 

There's none of that here.  It looks cheap.  It looks dated.  It looks shallow, and it looks boring.  Kevtris is absolutely correct; 4 years' dev time and that's what you have to show for it?  It's ridiculous.  Who does anyone think they're fooling with this?  Do you really think the market does not know better?  Who do you think these people are that are supposed to be the target demo for this thing?  Recently converted Amish?

 

12 hours ago, mr_me said:

And if I'm off base you can say so. 

 

That's what I was doing before your started with this disingenuous "I didn't say this" and "I didn't say that" and "no need to assume".  Bullshit.  You're defending the game on the merits Kevtris and I were attacking.  If you think this represents more value for money than any one of a slew of cheap shovelware trash implementing the same idea, then make that case.  Quit making all these orthogonal "observations" and then complaining that your position is being misrepresented when someone demonstrates how inane all these rationalizations are.  Explain why I, or anyone else, should look at this thing and say that they did a good job with Shark! Shark!  It's really long in the tooth at this point and was simplistic even by the standards of 1982, but they really leveraged what they had with that property into something that looks worth my while to buy in the here and now.  Okay?  You explain what you're seeing there that would make a normal, well adjusted person think that.

 

[gaterooze_ink]

6 hours ago, Cebus Capucinis said:

I'll defer to people who actually are involved in litigation, as I'm.....very not....but my understanding of fraud is that the bar to prove it is incredibly high, particularly with elements 4 and 5, namely knowledge and intent. It's not enough that the representer SUSPECT it's not true or MAYBE it's not true. The representer generally has to have actual knowledge the statement is false.

So hypothetically, if someone said to an investor, "We have 100,000 Purchase Orders" but they only had say 20,000 POs and the rest were "allocation requests" or similar letters of intent but not actual orders, do you think that might constitute fraud? Is "I'm an idiot and didn't know the difference" a valid defense to actual knowledge? And would later amending that statement (after the investor had invested) when under more scrutiny be evidence that they did have actual knowledge?

[jhd]

 

I am somewhat reluctant to cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source, but I do not have the time (or inclination) to undertake proper legal research ATM:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery#Federal_Trade_Commission_definition

 

 

[Cebus Capucinis]

25 minutes ago, gaterooze_ink said:

So hypothetically, if someone said to an investor, "We have 100,000 Purchase Orders" but they only had say 20,000 POs and the rest were "allocation requests" or similar letters of intent but not actual orders, do you think that might constitute fraud? Is "I'm an idiot and didn't know the difference" a valid defense to actual knowledge? And would later amending that statement (after the investor had invested) when under more scrutiny be evidence that they did have actual knowledge?

The issue here would be "material" and "intent." It's a statement of fact, it's wrong, and it's (probably) knowingly wrong, the question is just whether it was made with the intent to deceive others into taking a certain action (or omitting to do so, depending).  There's pretty good circumstantial inferences that it was intended as such, but the rubber meets the road on the high bar for intent. That might not be enough to say there was definitely intent to deceive.

 

The second part would be whether those claimed purchase orders were "material" in someone making a decision. Generally, the bar for materiality is that someone otherwise would be substantially less likely to invest, purchase, sell, etc. if they didn't know the claimed fact vs. knowing it.

 

I think a lot of their statements come CLOSE, don't get me wrong, and may cross the line. This is more a statement that the bar is really, really, REALLY high for fraud (for good reasons - we don't want anyone with buyer's remorse to be able to claim fraud willy nilly).

[MrBeefy]

7 hours ago, MrTrust said:

 

And it's nuts, mr_me.  That's what I'm trying to illustrate here.  You do understand that when you're "just describing some things I saw in the game" that you're not telling any of us anything we don't already see, right?  You weren't informing kevtris, or by extension myself, of anything; you were disputing the points we were making.  You were defending the game.

If the game is not attractive to families it is a failure even on its own terms.  To defend the game is to stake out the position that it is not a failure.  It's not necessary for you to explicitly say the game will be attractive to families because it is implicit in your defense of it.  Like it or not, Shark! Shark! was supposed to be their big tentpole family fun-on-the-couch game.  They never shut up about Shark! Shark!  Half the footage of that Texas event was of people playing Shark! Shark!  The second "deep dive" video they did was of Shark! Shark!  They showcased Shark! Shark! way more frequently than Breakout, or Moon Patrol, or Finnegan Fox or even the vaunted Cornhole.  This was one of the primary attractions they were peddling for the machine on the basis that it was a Super Awesome Family Entertaining or whatever their stupid acronym was.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm 40.  I got 2 kids.  I got the 1.5 story Cape Cod in the suburbs with the SUV so we can fit everyone in to watch the drive-in movies on Saturday night in the summer.  We eat dinner together at the table on Saturday night and go to church on Sunday morning.  I had an Intellivision in my room when I was 4 years old.  Still have several old Atari systems and even an NES and Genesis in the attic.  They want a demographic to sell this thing to, I'm the guy, and I'm telling you that I can see, without even having to pick up a controller, that this thing sucks.

 

Yeah, maybe if you handed this to some kid at the Crayola place, they will think it's neat.  Kids are not discerning.  You could download any freebie shovelware crap to your phone, hand it to a kid, and amuse them with it.  They're not going to get them off the bench and actually wanting to play it, and you're not going to get me either with something that looks as plays like that.
 

 

No, I don't.  I don't agree that anything about this thing makes for a good purchase.  Yes, it's possible to rework and recontextualize old games and old game mechanics in ways that make them communicable to a new audience.  I cited an example.  There are others.  Shark! Shark! is not one of them.

 

Yes, I would much rather see a revamping of the game to include co-op boss fighting.  Say, the giant squid spawns little squids that ink up the screen.  The kids have to eat the little squids.  The dad has to bite the squid on the head, which triggers and attack with all the tentacles that the dad has to dodge, and when the squid gets exhausted, the dad and the kid both have to bite one of the tentacles at the same time.  I would like to have seen specific challenges, maybe.  Complete this level against the hammerhead, but don't eat any blue fish.  Everybody swim through this scrolling coral maze without getting trapped.  Longest survivor wins.  Whatever; it takes two seconds thought to come up with all kinds of ideas that would have made the game worth a second look.  None of these things would have been all that difficult to implement.

 

Then there's the fact that it just looks like butt.  This is very obviously the Family Dollar version of Finding Nemo, a film which is now 20 years old and has been cashed in on by every cheap back bencher toy and movie company that to see cutes-y poo clownfish characters is to signal really hard that this is dollar store rip-off stuff we're dealing with.  If you're going to put out something that looks like a back bench XBLA game from 2003, you need to include something in that package to make it attractive to people who know better than to shell out good money on shovelware crap.  That means have interesting features.  That means include enough different modes and levels that two people can play it on camera for more than 20 minutes without looking like they've already exhausted all there is to see with it.  Make it look like something I'm not going to dread having to sit through if my kid actually did take a liking to it.

 

There's none of that here.  It looks cheap.  It looks dated.  It looks shallow, and it looks boring.  Kevtris is absolutely correct; 4 years' dev time and that's what you have to show for it?  It's ridiculous.  Who does anyone think they're fooling with this?  Do you really think the market does not know better?  Who do you think these people are that are supposed to be the target demo for this thing?  Recently converted Amish?

 

 

That's what I was doing before your started with this disingenuous "I didn't say this" and "I didn't say that" and "no need to assume".  Bullshit.  You're defending the game on the merits Kevtris and I were attacking.  If you think this represents more value for money than any one of a slew of cheap shovelware trash implementing the same idea, then make that case.  Quit making all these orthogonal "observations" and then complaining that your position is being misrepresented when someone demonstrates how inane all these rationalizations are.  Explain why I, or anyone else, should look at this thing and say that they did a good job with Shark! Shark!  It's really long in the tooth at this point and was simplistic even by the standards of 1982, but they really leveraged what they had with that property into something that looks worth my while to buy in the here and now.  Okay?  You explain what you're seeing there that would make a normal, well adjusted person think that.

 

You have a family and kids? It's not for you!

 

This is the crux of the matter. I got a lot of shit here for pointing out simple things. I honestly don't care about the name Intellivision or hold any of their IPs in high regard. 

 

Some people have a hard time excepting that the games of their childhood that they loved are no longer widely beloved.

 

There isn't anything wrong with liking the old games. It isn't bad to want an old console name to make a comeback. What is bad is literally shutting off your brain and deluding yourself.

 

I mean so many put their brain to sleep to join a cult of a guy saying he was going to disrupt family gaming, while being a childless grandpa aged man who intentionally told his wife he didn't want to have kids to put his 100% into making his company fail.

 

I mean think about that for a minute. He convinced people who have kids that he knew better than them, or others who do actually have families.

 

The console is suppose to be for you and for me. Trust and value is something that Intellivision doesn't have. Shark Shark for a normal family is not worth $349 entry fee. My wife did not think it was interesting enough at $200+.

 

We have faith in our ability to use technology to lock down devices. Tommy and the faithful acted like families were incapable of doing that. They also acted like they are dumb consumers and won't compare other similar options they are competing with.

 

Slopes said no more than $10 for Shark Shark in his opinion. After having watched it I think that is a generous price. I've bought better looking games than have more content for only a fourth of that price.

[mr_me]

17 hours ago, MrTrust said:

 

And it's nuts, mr_me.  That's what I'm trying to illustrate here.  You do understand that when you're "just describing some things I saw in the game" that you're not telling any of us anything we don't already see, right?  You weren't informing kevtris, or by extension myself, of anything; you were disputing the points we were making.  You were defending the game.

If the game is not attractive to families it is a failure even on its own terms.  To defend the game is to stake out the position that it is not a failure.  It's not necessary for you to explicitly say the game will be attractive to families because it is implicit in your defense of it.  Like it or not, Shark! Shark! was supposed to be their big tentpole family fun-on-the-couch game.  They never shut up about Shark! Shark!  Half the footage of that Texas event was of people playing Shark! Shark!  The second "deep dive" video they did was of Shark! Shark!  They showcased Shark! Shark! way more frequently than Breakout, or Moon Patrol, or Finnegan Fox or even the vaunted Cornhole.  This was one of the primary attractions they were peddling for the machine on the basis that it was a Super Awesome Family Entertaining or whatever their stupid acronym was.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm 40.  I got 2 kids.  I got the 1.5 story Cape Cod in the suburbs with the SUV so we can fit everyone in to watch the drive-in movies on Saturday night in the summer.  We eat dinner together at the table on Saturday night and go to church on Sunday morning.  I had an Intellivision in my room when I was 4 years old.  Still have several old Atari systems and even an NES and Genesis in the attic.  They want a demographic to sell this thing to, I'm the guy, and I'm telling you that I can see, without even having to pick up a controller, that this thing sucks.

 

Yeah, maybe if you handed this to some kid at the Crayola place, they will think it's neat.  Kids are not discerning.  You could download any freebie shovelware crap to your phone, hand it to a kid, and amuse them with it.  They're not going to get them off the bench and actually wanting to play it, and you're not going to get me either with something that looks as plays like that.
 

 

No, I don't.  I don't agree that anything about this thing makes for a good purchase.  Yes, it's possible to rework and recontextualize old games and old game mechanics in ways that make them communicable to a new audience.  I cited an example.  There are others.  Shark! Shark! is not one of them.

 

Yes, I would much rather see a revamping of the game to include co-op boss fighting.  Say, the giant squid spawns little squids that ink up the screen.  The kids have to eat the little squids.  The dad has to bite the squid on the head, which triggers and attack with all the tentacles that the dad has to dodge, and when the squid gets exhausted, the dad and the kid both have to bite one of the tentacles at the same time.  I would like to have seen specific challenges, maybe.  Complete this level against the hammerhead, but don't eat any blue fish.  Everybody swim through this scrolling coral maze without getting trapped.  Longest survivor wins.  Whatever; it takes two seconds thought to come up with all kinds of ideas that would have made the game worth a second look.  None of these things would have been all that difficult to implement.

 

Then there's the fact that it just looks like butt.  This is very obviously the Family Dollar version of Finding Nemo, a film which is now 20 years old and has been cashed in on by every cheap back bencher toy and movie company that to see cutes-y poo clownfish characters is to signal really hard that this is dollar store rip-off stuff we're dealing with.  If you're going to put out something that looks like a back bench XBLA game from 2003, you need to include something in that package to make it attractive to people who know better than to shell out good money on shovelware crap.  That means have interesting features.  That means include enough different modes and levels that two people can play it on camera for more than 20 minutes without looking like they've already exhausted all there is to see with it.  Make it look like something I'm not going to dread having to sit through if my kid actually did take a liking to it.

 

There's none of that here.  It looks cheap.  It looks dated.  It looks shallow, and it looks boring.  Kevtris is absolutely correct; 4 years' dev time and that's what you have to show for it?  It's ridiculous.  Who does anyone think they're fooling with this?  Do you really think the market does not know better?  Who do you think these people are that are supposed to be the target demo for this thing?  Recently converted Amish?

 

 

That's what I was doing before your started with this disingenuous "I didn't say this" and "I didn't say that" and "no need to assume".  Bullshit.  You're defending the game on the merits Kevtris and I were attacking.  If you think this represents more value for money than any one of a slew of cheap shovelware trash implementing the same idea, then make that case.  Quit making all these orthogonal "observations" and then complaining that your position is being misrepresented when someone demonstrates how inane all these rationalizations are.  Explain why I, or anyone else, should look at this thing and say that they did a good job with Shark! Shark!  It's really long in the tooth at this point and was simplistic even by the standards of 1982, but they really leveraged what they had with that property into something that looks worth my while to buy in the here and now.  Okay?  You explain what you're seeing there that would make a normal, well adjusted person think that.

 

So, someone wrote that the game is a high score chaser game not much different than the 1982 game. Busy people don't always have time to watch videos or may not be familiar with the 1982 game, and there's a lot more people reading the discussions than the handful posting comments here. I pointed out that, among other differences, the game has other play modes including a versus mode, in addition to a high score mode. And that it's these local multiplayer experiences, people interacting and competing with each other, was what they were going for with this system.  I tend to agree about getting away from high score games but people do like it and the leaderboards. And yes multiple players can cooperatively attack and kill sharks, different technique than a one player attack.  But more enemies, besides the different sharks, isn't a bad idea.

 

A follow-up comment suggested that puzzle and adventure elements could have been added to expand the game.  I responded that their idea was to bring the classic gameplay to new audiences, rather than making a different game. You mentioned that one of your children likes Centipede Recharged and that its mostly the same game as the original.  Which is what I was saying about what this company is trying to do with the gameplay in their retro remakes. They would have had other puzzle games, adventure games for the system.  And again, more game modes/challenges in Amico Shark Shark isn't a bad idea.  How about a battle royale mode, last fish standing wins each round.

 

You don't like how it looks, that's okay.  I think it looks perfectly fine. Why would you buy a game you don't like, and why should I want to convince you otherwise. People that do like the game can buy it. I don't know if sales of this game on its own will meet their expectations. What I said was that it would have a better chance of finding an audience as part of the Amico system than on other platforms. I think that no matter how good the game might be it would get lost on other systems. But even though it would have been a long shot I think the Amico system as a whole would have had a better chance of finding that audience. And no they weren't necessarily targeting households that already have multiple video game systems in the home. Recently converted Amish? There are segments in the US that are close to that

Edited May 26, 2023 by mr_me

[mr_me]

22 hours ago, number6 said:

I should explain why I am confused here, and maybe someone can offer a logical explanation.

I'll refer to the line again from BBG

We know from past discussion here plus the link:

Suspended LLC

 

And we also know:

Source

 

Given the above how could this transaction have taken place if erm...not allowed.

 

I've seen this before at Amiga where it entered court records, so I know "it's a thing". Here's an example prior to being able to make asset transfer:

Source

Note: taxes need to be paid and LLC or Inc. restored before you can do business as indicated

 

Any input on this is appreciated.

 

#6

I think they incorporated in Delaware about that time, and they may have had other company entities as well.  Besides are you sure a company in bad standing can't sell their assets.  Wouldn't that help them pay what's needed to change that status.

[Rowsdower70]

8 hours ago, MrBeefy said:

 

 

Slopes said no more than $10 for Shark Shark in his opinion. After having watched it I think that is a generous price. I've bought better looking games than have more content for only a fourth of that price.

They should try to sell ad space on the screen and give it away for free like tons of other phone games.   Let someone hide the ads by paying 5 bucks if they want to.  
$10 on Steam can be FAR better spent than on a mobile phone game. 

[MrBeefy]

11 minutes ago, Rowsdower70 said:

They should try to sell ad space on the screen and give it away for free like tons of other phone games.   Let someone hide the ads by paying 5 bucks if they want to.  
$10 on Steam can be FAR better spent than on a mobile phone game. 

Who knows it might be higher. I've been playing a game on my Switch that I got for $0.19, and it seems to have more depth than Shark! Shark!

 

Some news on Dart Frenzy!

 

[number6]

41 minutes ago, mr_me said:

I think they incorporated in Delaware about that time, and they may have had other company entities as well.  Besides are you sure a company in bad standing can't sell their assets.  Wouldn't that help them pay what's needed to change that status.

If you check the link, you'll see a much longer list of what is not allowed towards bottom.

Quote

You cannot:

• Legally do business
• Sell, transfer, or exchange real property
• File with an automatic extension
• Be issued a refund
• Start or continue a protest
• Legally close or dissolve your business
• Bring an action or defend your business in court
• File or maintain an appeal before the Office of Tax Appeals
• Maintain the right to use your business name
  • Secretary of State (SOS) will deny your revivor request if the entity name is no longer available.
    • SOS will require your business to choose a new name
• Retain tax-exempt status.
  • We revoke an organization’s tax-exempt status as of the suspension date.

And if you check the example I showed re:Amiga. No. If the example isn't clear, they had to pay back taxes and file revive -before- they could perform any action. In that case a transfer of all assets.

 

The only active LLC at the time of the new "Inc." in Delaware was Intellivision Holdings LLC

Article on this topic

and

Support for statement above note: active status

 

Since there were many changes to the text from BBG (see discussion a few pages back), I wonder if this isn't just another typo.

 

Opinion added: I think a joint press release might have avoided much of the confusion surrounding this

 

#6

Edited May 26, 2023 by number6
Added opinion

[number6]

@MrMe

 

I'll call this case #2.

If it -is- true that Intellivision Entertainment LLC made the deal and...

made the deal while still active (not the current state of suspension),

then our job is easier.

We have dates here from the suspended LLC

Quote

2021-08-09 - 2022-02-03

Became inactive

So,  in this case, logic would dictate the deal was made prior to these dates when the LLC was still active and allowed to conduct business, as opposed to some recent development.

 

So which is it?

 

#6

 

[Rev]

4 hours ago, MrBeefy said:

Who knows it might be higher. I've been playing a game on my Switch that I got for $0.19, and it seems to have more depth than Shark! Shark!

 

Some news on Dart Frenzy!

 

Do we know when the Dart game was ported to Amico?

 

2023?

 

Or years prior….

 

Yet another port on the system with no ports. 

[rayik]

27 minutes ago, Rev said:

Do we know when the Dart game was ported to Amico?

 

2023?

 

Or years prior….

 

Yet another port on the system with no ports. 

But rev, does the game have FCC certs?

[Cebus Capucinis]

3 hours ago, number6 said:

@MrMe

 

I'll call this case #2.

If it -is- true that Intellivision Entertainment LLC made the deal and...

made the deal while still active (not the current state of suspension),

then our job is easier.

We have dates here from the suspended LLC

So,  in this case, logic would dictate the deal was made prior to these dates when the LLC was still active and allowed to conduct business, as opposed to some recent development.

 

So which is it?

 

#6

 

For color on my actual area of law, this comes up all the time. While organizations not in good standing are legally unable to conduct business, commonly this isn't looked into when entering into contracts. However, what will happen is each party will represent and warrant that they are validly formed and in good standing in the jurisdiction of their formation. (There's other stuff but this is what matters for our purposes.) An entity would be in default day one upon execution if this isn't true (usually for failure to pay annual franchise tax).

 

From a practical standpoint, any actual issue is unlikely to come up. As long as both parties are performing and the government doesn't shut the violator down (which most state govs basically will never do), it will always be a non-issue. And even if it is, one party just cures the default by filing for what, $300ish max? The damages for a breach would be whatever couldn't be sold/produced/what have you in that time period, which in this case is....not much anyway, especially since it's basically an IP license grant. The only situation IE's failing to be in good standing matters is if their IP licenses were somehow declared invalid or null and void due to that fact, and candidly, the chances of that happening are incredibly slim.

 

They'll probably just quietly file their franchise tax and fix the problem after someone lets them know (this is what we do all the time in our deals). No harm, no foul.

 

So even if they weren't in good standing, it's still entirely possible they entered into this agreement, the other side didn't know, and the agreement is likely still perfectly fine despite that fact.

[Razzie.P]

57 minutes ago, rayik said:

But rev, does the game have FCC certs?

Doesn't matter.  I'm sure somebody said that somebody told them that they heard somewhere that they could have passed any time, so that's what's important, if I understood correctly.

[rayik]

1 hour ago, Cebus Capucinis said:

For color on my actual area of law, this comes up all the time. While organizations not in good standing are legally unable to conduct business, commonly this isn't looked into when entering into contracts. However, what will happen is each party will represent and warrant that they are validly formed and in good standing in the jurisdiction of their formation. (There's other stuff but this is what matters for our purposes.) An entity would be in default day one upon execution if this isn't true (usually for failure to pay annual franchise tax).

 

From a practical standpoint, any actual issue is unlikely to come up. As long as both parties are performing and the government doesn't shut the violator down (which most state govs basically will never do), it will always be a non-issue. And even if it is, one party just cures the default by filing for what, $300ish max? The damages for a breach would be whatever couldn't be sold/produced/what have you in that time period, which in this case is....not much anyway, especially since it's basically an IP license grant. The only situation IE's failing to be in good standing matters is if their IP licenses were somehow declared invalid or null and void due to that fact, and candidly, the chances of that happening are incredibly slim.

 

They'll probably just quietly file their franchise tax and fix the problem after someone lets them know (this is what we do all the time in our deals). No harm, no foul.

 

So even if they weren't in good standing, it's still entirely possible they entered into this agreement, the other side didn't know, and the agreement is likely still perfectly fine despite that fact.

Your wasting your time trying to explain how things actually work, rather than what you can read in the internet

[number6]

1 hour ago, Cebus Capucinis said:

For color on my actual area of law, this comes up all the time. While organizations not in good standing are legally unable to conduct business, commonly this isn't looked into when entering into contracts. However, what will happen is each party will represent and warrant that they are validly formed and in good standing in the jurisdiction of their formation. (There's other stuff but this is what matters for our purposes.) An entity would be in default day one upon execution if this isn't true (usually for failure to pay annual franchise tax).

 

From a practical standpoint, any actual issue is unlikely to come up. As long as both parties are performing and the government doesn't shut the violator down (which most state govs basically will never do), it will always be a non-issue. And even if it is, one party just cures the default by filing for what, $300ish max? The damages for a breach would be whatever couldn't be sold/produced/what have you in that time period, which in this case is....not much anyway, especially since it's basically an IP license grant. The only situation IE's failing to be in good standing matters is if their IP licenses were somehow declared invalid or null and void due to that fact, and candidly, the chances of that happening are incredibly slim.

 

They'll probably just quietly file their franchise tax and fix the problem after someone lets them know (this is what we do all the time in our deals). No harm, no foul.

 

So even if they weren't in good standing, it's still entirely possible they entered into this agreement, the other side didn't know, and the agreement is likely still perfectly fine despite that fact.

Thank you very much for your post.

And these days given staff shortages, courts advertising to get magistrates and judges, it will likely be even less of an issue.

 

#6

[MrBeefy]

5 hours ago, Rev said:

Do we know when the Dart game was ported to Amico?

 

2023?

 

Or years prior….

 

Yet another port on the system with no ports. 

This actually isn't a port. More like a sequel. If you watch TonyTGDs video he contacted and talked to the devs.

 

Amicophants Mullis and DJC act like they haven't seen anything like this. Despite the original being on Wii and Clubhouse Games having it since like 2020.

 

I heard DJC say something stupid about he could see bars using them for dart tournaments. 🤣

 

Such a family friendly setting! Not to mention he's an investor trying to throw anything out there that might stick.

 

It is pretty obvious those two are out of touch with gaming. It is fun to watch the goalposts being moved by them. Now it's "about the experience" and not the console. They forgot how the console was to disrupt the industry. It will be interesting to see what they say when Amico Home disrupts nothing.

 

Amico in any form has still yet to show anything that isn't available already for a similar or cheaper price.

[number6]

@Cebus Capucinis

 

In your opinion since the case of Amur Equipment Finance, Inc. vs Intellivision Entertainment, LLC has also invoked the suspended LLC's name, could some piercing of the corporate veil occur if they reached the point of actually deposing parties?

 

#6

[SteveTheColecoDude]

14 minutes ago, MrBeefy said:

This actually isn't a port. More like a sequel. If you watch TonyTGDs video he contacted and talked to the devs.

 

Amicophants Mullis and DJC act like they haven't seen anything like this. Despite the original being on Wii and Clubhouse Games having it since like 2020.

 

I heard DJC say something stupid about he could see bars using them for dart tournaments. 🤣

 

Such a family friendly setting! Not to mention he's an investor trying to throw anything out there that might stick.

 

It is pretty obvious those two are out of touch with gaming. It is fun to watch the goalposts being moved by them. Now it's "about the experience" and not the console. They forgot how the console was to disrupt the industry. It will be interesting to see what they say when Amico Home disrupts nothing.

 

Amico in any form has still yet to show anything that isn't available already for a similar or cheaper price.

 

DJC and Mike Mullis have said that it's a "very unique" game that they can't imagine being able to be done on any other system. It's nuts.