Edge or Edgy: Part Two

[Russ Pitts]

Edge or Edgy: Part Two

New information shines some light on just why Mobigame is putting up such a fight over the Edge trademark.

Read Full Article

 

[Shadedblade]

Wow, you guys/gals worked pretty damn hard on this one. Talk about aggressive journalism...
Anyway, it is very interesting to see this dilemna in a new light.

 

[jimblackler]

What an abysmal article.

So much waffle to say so little.

 

[Shamus Young]

Worth a look:

Chaos Edge, a blog dedicated to TL and his... ongoing efforts.

http://chaosedge.wordpress.com/

Want to see Edge Studios? Behold:

http://chaosedge.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/the-products-of-the-edge-empire/

(Scroll to the bottom.)

A summary of a judgment against EDGE:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-challenge-decision-results/t-challenge-decision-results-bl?BL_Number=O/337/02

As always, read carefully.

 

[j0z]

An interesting article, and I must commend you on your reporting on this issue.
I find the new evidence presented by Mobi, and Edge Game's refusal to refute them, most troubling. Even if Edge has the law highground, they certainly don't have the moral.

What an abysmal article.

So much waffle to say so little.

No one forced you to read it, they did some hard reporting, and told the facts they uncovered. What more do you want?

 

[Shamus Young]

One more: A history of his cases, and a few examples of what I believe are willfully fraudulent evidence:

http://www.tigsource.com/pages/edge-games

 

[Monshroud]

This is a really great article, and I was amazed by the level of work you all did to sort through all the information.

I think Mobigames is fighting for the sake of fighting now. At first I had sided with them and thought that Edge was evil. After calming down and reading through the facts and talking to a lawyer friend. Edge was in the right to do what they did. Edge is fighting to protect their trademark.

Now unless a lawsuit was actually filed saying that Mobigames owes monies based on previous sales, I think they should have just changed the name of their game and moved on. What does Mobigames stand to get if they keep fighting. Just some more free press that they were already getting for their solid game?

 

[CoverYourHead]

This case is such a great drama, someone should make a T.V. show about it.

I don't know if I trust either party, something stinks here.

 

[jimblackler]

they did some hard reporting, and told the facts they uncovered.

lol @ that

Random internet users are running rings around this in terms of investigating Timmy. Follow Shamus's links to see what people have dug up. I had to wade through the turgid prose here to see what was new.. answer, not a lot.

 

[alexwhiteside]

Why would you consult copyright attorneys about a trademark dispute? You might as well have asked divorce attorneys or patent clerks.

 

[roskelld]

Edge is fighting to protect their trademark.

I've been following this since May and I'm still yet to see an example of this trademark. (Post 1991)

Anyone have any luck finding it? Maybe down the back of their chair?

 

[Monshroud]

Edge is fighting to protect their trademark.

I've been following this since May and I'm still yet to see an example of this trademark. (Post 1991)

Anyone have any luck finding it? Maybe down the back of their chair?

Oh I agree fully that they have not published anything in any realm of recent. That still doesn't change the fact that they own a trademark and that they did in fact use that trademark for its intended purpose.

I am not saying I agree with what Edge Games is doing or did, I am just saying I understand.

 

[Dahemo]

Langdell is the worst kind of talentless hack, one who leeches on the hard work and goodwill of others. I think the contention of Mobigame that the mark is unsound is highly valid. Surely one must have a use in mind for a copyright, Langdell isn't creating anything, and by being based in the US surely he's fringing Fifth Amendment entitlements? TIGSource made infuriating reading, but thankyou for it Shamus, it's saddening to see how long such a crook has been operating. Can I ask where his doctorate is from? And in what field?

I suppose this is the unfortunate reality of business...

 

[roskelld]

Some of you might want to go back and read Edge Games public statement on this as it's quoted in the article.

However the link to the article was removed a few days back. Maybe because someone had knowledge that this Escapist article was about to arrive.

Fear not though, removing the link does nothing to the article itself and it can still be found:

http://www.the--edge.com/edgegames/mobigame.htm

 

[roskelld]

Edge is fighting to protect their trademark.

I've been following this since May and I'm still yet to see an example of this trademark. (Post 1991)

Anyone have any luck finding it? Maybe down the back of their chair?

Oh I agree fully that they have not published anything in any realm of recent. That still doesn't change the fact that they own a trademark and that they did in fact use that trademark for its intended purpose.

I am not saying I agree with what Edge Games is doing or did, I am just saying I understand.

Certainly did, in the 80's and very early '90s the trademark was used as their business name, and anyone creating video games during that period and trying to call themselves The Edge would have indeed caused confusion.

But there's no confusion here. We have a company that hasn't seen a title on the shelf since about 1991 and an iPhone game. I'm not confused? Anyone else?

 

[El Poncho]

I'm on Mobi with this one just for the fact that it's a word and you should not be able to own a word.

Very good article

 

[tgilbert]

I'm on Mobi with this one just for the fact that it's a word and you should not be able to own a word.

As much as I despise Mr. Langdell's business tactics, trademark specifically allows owning a "word" (by which I assume you mean a common dictionary word) in specific contexts and when associated with specific products. Whether we like it or not, and whether it was improper or not, Edge was awarded the trademark in the context of video games.

Like many trademark and patent disputes, the real question is whether the trademark should have been granted in the first place, and if the party owning the trademark has been actively *using* it (trademarks are "use 'em or lose 'em" protections). I personally don't see that Langdell has been actively using the trademark for any purpose other than to license the mark to others -- which, while I'm not a lawyer, I feel confident goes against at least the spirit of the law if not the letter.

The larger issue, and ultimately the most significant one, is that Mr. Langdell has clearly practiced a predatory business around this trademark and *still* was able to become a board member of the IGDA. It speaks poorly of the IGDA's executive leadership *and* of its members (and their apparent apathy toward the operations of their due-supported organization).

 

[Macar]

The article asks why Mobigames is battling it?

Should not all men oppose tyrany? I say more power to them.

 

[mk-1601]

"...but in the absence of any further evidence contradicting our initial conclusions..."

You are joking, right?

"But if that's so, then why is Mobigame fighting? The answer to that is that they believe they've been treated unfairly. Whether or not that's a sufficient legal basis for their arguments, it's at least understandable."

This whole paragraph is condescending and disingenuous beyond belief.

Please, just admit that you were wrong initially and are falling ever further behind in your attempts to equivocate on this matter. Your attempts at damage limitation are as embarrassingly out of step with the community as your non-Zero Punctuation video programming.

 

[RobF]

How, given the evidence produced and the evidence displayed in the article you can feel comfortable writing that last paragraph in that article is utterly beyond me.

Boggling idiocy of the first order.