Another interesting find yx. So if the name BBinc can not be used by anyone even though we are in chap 11 bk and the 2012 designates the fact that something was developed this year that is interesting indeed. I have been saying all along that the fact that BBllc/Dish was not being part of the ultra-violet debut was very strange.My thinking is that the technology to utilize it was still in developement(hence the 2012 after the BBinc) and I feel it will also have something to do with the streaming coming up.Bill brought up the fact awhile ago that patent/legal people were brought in by BLIAQ and my guess is that it was all about a new way movies will be delivered via streaming or downloading service that is yet to be introduced.All my opinion but thats what its starting to look like to me :) and I like it!
I finally had some time (currently in Toronto for business) to do research on copyright notice. Below you will see that the appearance of 2012 has a simple meaning, nothing to do with (change of) corporate structure of BB Inc.
Copyright © 2012 [COPYRIGHT OWNER’S NAME]. All Rights Reserved.
"Following the copyright symbol is the date. You should insert the year in which your work was created (if you are copyrighting a collection of short stories, use the year that the last piece in the collection was created)."
oh and the taxi thing too, Blob cannot write worth a flip. clearly he is a foreigner, as are a LOT of taxi drivers. fine with me, but learn the English language a little. Before making your living in my country.
so on that count, yes, i am making fun of him. and looking down on him. and rightfully so i might add.
I wonder if some of these "bashers" would ever say the things they do to ones face. Not hide behind a craptop. I can't believe that any person morally sound would gain enjoyment over seeing anyone lose money in a stock, lose their job, have their house foreclosed on. I think if they sre getting paid to do this it's a shameless job and thats what i think Jerry meant when I read his post....
Well, what a man DOES, IS important. so i look at what Blob posts. yes, it doesn't matter what the job is, but how one does it. If i chose to be a ditch digger i'd be a good one. Blob is clearly a Basher posting in order to be a pain. He is a malingerer. if he was a good taxi driver i'd say good for him. But you know what i mean, don't you Johnwhistle. and so u try to spin it that i am being a snob for the blue collar taxi driver. goodness you are a deceiver, like in transformers, a 'deceptocon', thats u john.
yx,you do not need to connect the dots for me.I apeciate and am grateful for the time and effort on everything you post. The date you posted of when the license was applied for and the "coincedence" of the sudden share price surge all make sense. The thing I am wondering is altogether? I would think the answer is no,that "Blockbuster Inc" is not an available name for anyone obtaining a license but is only permissable for use by the "shell" or possibly the trust. This is all a very interesting developement and a great find by you.
Bill and yx88, I do believe you have both said a mouthful and don't need to connect any more dots. The only caveat for me is that I have been seeing the Blockbuster, Inc. designation followed by copyright Blockbuster 2012, most recently in the Blockbuster Blog.
What is that about? why copyright 2012 if all this happened in late 2011?
You mentioned something important: the license was issued "before" the halt/name change. This proves that the BB Inc named in the license has to be "our" BB Inc (nobody else can use it, even in bk). So our BB Inc is owned by BB Holding LLC, which happens to own BB LLC (the "new" Blockbuster). Do I need to connect all dots?