Quoted from KozMckPinball:
Maybe there's some value in the interchangeable playfield patent.
Wait, what? AFAIK they haven't submitted a patent for that. Gerry Stellenberg on the other hand has submitted *lots* but never seems to get them accepted due to prior art.
If you look at the financials they posted at the start of this month, they seem to think they have over half a million in intangible assets (so designs/IP/trademarks, valuable things with no physical presence), which is laughable if you ask me. Much more likely that they saw a massive hole in their budget and tried to plug it with 'creative accounting'. Here's the other thing, Andy loved to point out that the machinery was owned by them. If that's the case, how come their physical assets are now valued 60% lower_ than the previous year?
Do yourselves a favour and have a good read of page 4 of this pdf: