of course they wanted evidence, so would the other side. Evidence is not only the way to prove guilt but also the way to prove innocence. They emailed Weitzman on Saturday about preserve evidence. Sure said Weitzman, arranged for videotaping and pictures being taken of the technology. Apparently they aren't trusting the other side so Alki went to court on an emergency hearing on Sunday asking court to allow them access to the Billboard show. Estate didn't even respond and why would they? They had already agreed and arranged for preserving the evidence in the video format without a court order. And if they were infringing patents would you think they would be this easygoing in regards to agreeing to record evidence without being forced? Court ruled in Alki's favor at 4:52, they emailed Weitzman by 5:08 - 8 minutes after show started. Travel and getting access to the venue took sometime as far as we can see. When they were in the hologram part was over. But they had 90 minute access directly to the technology, being able to examine it and videotaping it themselves in person. Looks like there had been issues in regards to how long they investigated it (they wanted to examine it more and the other side thought they had done enough examination) and they didn't play the hologram for Alki's people - apparently show was over and the people who were playing it had gone. Now they have an emergency request for Estate to turn over any video.. I'm asking you why? If you (generally speaking) can look to a cell phone video and can identify the technology for certain, why would Alki's people need any more information than their 90 minute in person examination? Why the rush?
@WhoIsIt89 I think I was very clear with "it seems" and mentioning we only have bits and pieces. I'm not portraying it anything more than it actually is. Current situation does require us to connect pieces and come to conclusions - it's fine to call it an assumption. I have to say that while your approach to court documents are "nothing but assumptions", your approach to Alki was "he knows what he's talking about" when in fact he stated he had no knowledge and making assumptions. Kinda double standard, isn't it?
Honestly I'm tired of this. I explained myself multiple times and very clearly. I said what I wanted to say. It's not my issue if it's not being understood or if there's a refusal about it. It's your choice to believe unnamed sources or see Alki as credible. I personally refuse to entertain Alki as credible.
No, it isn't a double standard, at least I don't think, when I'm aware of what I viewed in the live fan footage. I never heard once Alki David say in that video, "I don't know what I'm talking about and making assumptions"..What I did hear was him explaining how he thinks it was done, based on the technology that he now patents, the same tech used to re-create Tupac. I find it hard to believe a guy would purchase a share of this technology, which I think may need to be done in order for him to personally "license" it to anyone, and he simply made no effort to find out about what he was getting himself into.
What you posted simply doesn't make "it seem" like anything. That's the fact of the matter, it's bits and pieces, you formed an opinion of what it may have meant, based on what you want to believe is the case. Others, like myself, formed an opinion on what WE may think it meant, based on the things we know and believe. However, neither of those opinions are more correct than the other, because we simply don't know. And to act as if it is, is just flat out incorrect. Not saying that's what you did, but I'm speaking in general.
Those court docs, didn't allude to anything. And the way that you first alluded to that they "found nothing", solely because those screens say how Alki & Co. had their people go into the Billboard awards and inspect, and then ask the creators and the Estate for videos, is surprising of you. Because from all of your past instances, I really believe you're better than that to jump to such an objective conclusion, with such an subjective statement in a court document.
Alki isn't reliable when it comes to Michael's personal life. Yet how does that coincide with us only believing something or someone when it fits our agenda? He has the patent to the tech, he has to know a bit of information about it. He has nothing, no title , no nothing to anything that relates to Michael's personal life. But that really has nothing to do with this specific discussion. It's apples & oranges. And I believe people are really reaching and just looking for a way, however flawed it may be, to say "You're wrong about everything", every time they bring that up about how Alki said whatever about Michael & B Howard. They're two separate issues, neither has to do with one another.
@ LastTears, except the CNN video wasn't preceded with "here's proof" or a "confirmation". Not the one I posted, I didn't see Birchey say that. What I saw was "along with everything else, this also confirms to me....". That's it, so I don't see how anyone can see that sentence, and then jump to some silly conclusion of us simply taking Alki's word as the end all, be all.