Those were dumped because there was no demand and warehouse space costs money. Unsellable product isn't an asset, it's a liability.
Also Atari didn't go bankrupt and weren't even an independent company. They were a wholly owned division of Warner since 1976. When the console market crashed, Warner simply sold off their console division.
Except they can make the argument that fire selling the equipment could put other businesses the creditors have debt with in jeopardy so it'd be better to just burn it all.
That's not how corperate liquidation works. When a company is destroyed by a popped bubble, the bankruptcy court appoints a trustee to liquidate everything and then pay as much of the debts as possible. Bankruptcy shields the company's executives from liability, but intentionally and spitefully destroying assets that should go to paying debts would not be a terribly smart move.
On the bright side, after the AI bubble pops, there's going to be a fire sale on used consumer grade data center equipment.
Or they will just spite everyone and chuck it all in landfill.
That's not an option when a company's liquidated in bankruptcy, they have creditors they're obligated to pay with whatever assets they have.
Atari Inc (1972-1984)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836779/Atari-games-buried-landfill-net-37-000-eBay.html
Those were dumped because there was no demand and warehouse space costs money. Unsellable product isn't an asset, it's a liability.
Also Atari didn't go bankrupt and weren't even an independent company. They were a wholly owned division of Warner since 1976. When the console market crashed, Warner simply sold off their console division.
Except they can make the argument that fire selling the equipment could put other businesses the creditors have debt with in jeopardy so it'd be better to just burn it all.
That's not how corperate liquidation works. When a company is destroyed by a popped bubble, the bankruptcy court appoints a trustee to liquidate everything and then pay as much of the debts as possible. Bankruptcy shields the company's executives from liability, but intentionally and spitefully destroying assets that should go to paying debts would not be a terribly smart move.
You think they will give a shit?
If they want to be able to hide behind bankruptcy laws instead of being personally liable, yes.