EDGE of Asshattery
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Sir, I believe you are sorely misinformed. This is not defamation of character, this is reporting facts that are supported by links to off-site material of a man engaging in cutthroat business tactics; you have no right to censor this site, you have no power to censor the 'net. An Editorial presents a supported opinion on current events. This is what this is. You are not above criticism.Tim Langdell said:
Granted, some of the posts here are not friendly. But there's a little thing called free speech, and the Internet is its bastion. You. Shall not. Pass.
Did I say that they can post death threats? No. In fact, I myself am surprised that several of these people haven't been approached by the moderators. But requesting the article be removed is ridiculous, offensive, and frankly angering. If you meant the offensive comments, then by all means contact [user]nilcypher[/user], [user]wilsoncrazybed[/user], or [user]Alex_P[/user].Tim Langdell said:
Also, the site has not stepped into the story. Shamus Young did. So... yeah. If anything, your complaints should be registered to Mr. Young rather than Pitts.
Actually, death threats are looked down on, and are a report-worthy offense here on the Escapist. It's just that nobody has reported any of these users, because while they might not wish you death, they can't help but sympathize with the negative veiwpoint that these users hold towards you. Also, you have been insulted: big whoop.Tim Langdell said:
This is an editorial: a piece of opinion, backed up by facts. If you feel that you have another side to the story, by all means publish a paper with the details: we would await it with bated breath. Your actions would seem to indicate that you have yourself ignored some truths: such as the truth that you should act as you wish to be treated.
I find it comical that you want to identify the site with its community. The site is not the community. The community is not the site. Mr. Young didn't do more than insult you in his article, which is perfectly legitimate, legal, and politically correct. What the community says is beyond his control. Oh, and notice what [user]Susan Arendt[/user], a staff member of the Escapist, said.Tim Langdell said:
Therefore, the site is not the one to blame. They are discouraging this behavior. Have faith that they will punish it.Susan Arendt said:
The Escapist publishes Young's works because they A) Agree with what he says or B) finds his viewpoints interesting enough to include in their pages. You can get offended all you want, I don't see it doing you much good. I'll give you that the site has 'stepped into' the story. So here's your chance.
Explain your actions. Go on, I'm waiting. Justify your rabid attacks on creative, low-budget indie developers. Explain why you waited until this man could not legally defend himself.
I have bookmarked EDGE Games' site and heartily await your paper. I'm not one to attack without knowing both sides of the story, although I find little way for you to escape this unscathed. I will not speak for Susan, or the site, any longer, because it's not my place.Tim Langdell said:
But from what I've seen, I don't disagree with her.
Lets break it down shall we?
The quoted is a press announcement by EDGE to defend itself.
"First, no one ?pulled? Mobigame?s iPhone game (in the sense of EDGE Games complaining to Apple and Apple then ?pulling? the game). Mobigame?s game was not ?unceremoniously yanked? from the U.S. and UK AppStores. [b/]No one sued Mobigame[/b]. The truth is Mobigame voluntarily withdrew their game from the Apple AppStores in the U.S. and UK. What was said was clearly an attempt to make the legitimate actions of a company look like an individual?s poor treatment of a fellow indie game company. In naming their game ?EDGE? Mobigame broke the law. [b/]EDGE informed Apple of the infringement and Apple sent one of their standard letters to Mobigame. Mobigame?s[/b] attorney replied to EDGE at Apple?s request saying that if EDGE produced evidence of its registered rights in the mark ?EDGE? then she would advise her client to take the game down and rename it. EDGE supplied that proof of registered rights, Mobigame?s attorney thanked EDGE and advised Mobigame to take the game down, which they did. Mobigame have so far refused to rename the game so that it can be resubmitted to the U.S. and UK App Stores, but that has been entirely their choice."
[i/]Okay, so if we are to believe everything that EDGE says (which we're going to because it still makes them look rather bad). So EDGE didn't sure Mobigames but told Apple that Mobigames broke the law? I can't say I've read the EDGE/Apple letter but it seems to me that if one says that a company has done wrong upon them , they will take legal action. So then Apple telle Mobigames of this. Of course the Mobigames attorney will ask for proof. EDGE sends their proof of ownership over [b/]A WORD[/b]. then the attorney advises her clients to take this game off the market? And who wouldn't? Any attorney worth their stones would advise a client avoid a legal duel with a giant game corporation.[/i]
"In contrast, Mobigame has been bullying EDGE by saying EDGE may not use its nearly 30-year old mark EDGE in Europe unless EDGE gets Mobigame?s permission first. Last Friday EDGE refused to sign an agreement in response to Papazian?s demand that EDGE do so, which is undoubtedly what led to Mobigame starting this flame war here in the U.S. with the sole intent of trying to embarrass EDGE (and me as EDGE?s CEO) into agreeing to their unreasonable proposal. Indeed, that is undoubtedly why the attack was on me as an individual, and me as a Board member of the IGDA, and not on EDGE Games, since Papazian thought he could cause maximum embarrassment this way."
[i/]]Unfortunately there is no proof that this conversation took place, so I don't beleive I have any insight to put into this. However if this is true it makes Mobigames look rather bad. Although one could argue they are trying to exploit this maybe-existing loophole in attempts to salvage their game: edge (don't sue me for writing that word please).[/i]
"Third, neither EDGE, nor I, nor Future Publishing, have ever sued anyone over our EDGE trademarks. In almost 30 years in the game industry neither I nor EDGE has ever started any litigation on such issues, so it is not just a twisting of the truth to talk in terms of ?the litigious habits of [?] Tim Langdell,? it is flat-out not true. EDGE has only taken entirely reasonable action that is required of it by law to protect its rights. [b/]Since I personally own no trademarks, there was certainly no truth to the accusation that I have personally been trying to enforce ?my? trademarks. Just to be clear, actions in trademark offices (such as the Namco Souledge issue) are not ?law suits? or ?litigation? they are part of standard trademark office procedures that any responsible company in the game industry is required to follow to protect their trademarks[/b]. By opposing a trademark application a company is not ?suing? the other company, or ?litigating,? they are merely following the process the trademark office requires them to of application/publication/opposition leading to registration or refusal. EDGE has never engaged in anything other than entirely legitimate practices to protect its trademarks."
[i/]Using semantics to argue one's morality is pointless. They obviously released this statement to look better in the view of the public. The point of a patent is to make sure you ideas are not taken by others, making a loss f profit to the main inventor. Unless we are to believe EDGE Gaming invented the word "EDGE" it makes the patent bogus. EDGE knows this, they onyl sure to stall other gaming companies who just end up settling, to move their own gaming production onwards. EDGE Gaming suffers no loss by having a game called EDGE on the apple store, but that is irrelevant to them. They also will not suffer any monetary loss by having a game called "Soul Edge" on the shelf. A patent is meant to represent an idea, or what EDGE represent, not the word itself.[/i]
"Fourth, a Virginia Court document was quoted from that said that EDGE had tried to obfuscate and mislead the court. What was not mentioned (since it did not help fuel the intended goal of getting people angry with me) was that the court order in question was voided with the court later deciding EDGE had not tried to obfuscate or mislead it. There was never any question of me personally behaving badly in that court matter, but even the initial decision that EDGE had acted badly was reversed by the court."
[i/]What document? If it was just a court script, it could have been what EDGE's own Lawyers said during trail or testimony. Without any other information this entire paragraph I believe is bogus, but I'm only a mock lawyer for high school so I'm not exactly sure on this count[/i].
"Last, in my role as CEO of EDGE I have produced all of the several hundred game SKUs EDGE has developed and published since 1979, and thus that statement was entirely true, as was every other statement I have made about my accomplishments over the years. I have never sought to claim someone else?s work as my own, that accusation was only said in an attempt to defame me. EDGE has been active as an indie game developer and publisher at all times over the last several decades and has a number of games in development at this time."
[i/]EDGE is not suing people over stealing EDGE's work, if EDGE was, I'm sure people would be on EDGE's side. EDGE is suing people who are using a word, which , as I have stated before, does nothing to damage EDGE's profits. Although I can't help wonder what profits those may be since EDGE has been producing/creating any games lately from what I or many others had heard. just saying you are making game does nothing to help your standing, 3D realms said they were doing the exact same thing, and who here has a copy of Duke Nuke'm Forever?[/i]
This seems stupid now the we know that Tim was a fake.
The quoted is a press announcement by EDGE to defend itself.
"First, no one ?pulled? Mobigame?s iPhone game (in the sense of EDGE Games complaining to Apple and Apple then ?pulling? the game). Mobigame?s game was not ?unceremoniously yanked? from the U.S. and UK AppStores. [b/]No one sued Mobigame[/b]. The truth is Mobigame voluntarily withdrew their game from the Apple AppStores in the U.S. and UK. What was said was clearly an attempt to make the legitimate actions of a company look like an individual?s poor treatment of a fellow indie game company. In naming their game ?EDGE? Mobigame broke the law. [b/]EDGE informed Apple of the infringement and Apple sent one of their standard letters to Mobigame. Mobigame?s[/b] attorney replied to EDGE at Apple?s request saying that if EDGE produced evidence of its registered rights in the mark ?EDGE? then she would advise her client to take the game down and rename it. EDGE supplied that proof of registered rights, Mobigame?s attorney thanked EDGE and advised Mobigame to take the game down, which they did. Mobigame have so far refused to rename the game so that it can be resubmitted to the U.S. and UK App Stores, but that has been entirely their choice."
[i/]Okay, so if we are to believe everything that EDGE says (which we're going to because it still makes them look rather bad). So EDGE didn't sure Mobigames but told Apple that Mobigames broke the law? I can't say I've read the EDGE/Apple letter but it seems to me that if one says that a company has done wrong upon them , they will take legal action. So then Apple telle Mobigames of this. Of course the Mobigames attorney will ask for proof. EDGE sends their proof of ownership over [b/]A WORD[/b]. then the attorney advises her clients to take this game off the market? And who wouldn't? Any attorney worth their stones would advise a client avoid a legal duel with a giant game corporation.[/i]
"In contrast, Mobigame has been bullying EDGE by saying EDGE may not use its nearly 30-year old mark EDGE in Europe unless EDGE gets Mobigame?s permission first. Last Friday EDGE refused to sign an agreement in response to Papazian?s demand that EDGE do so, which is undoubtedly what led to Mobigame starting this flame war here in the U.S. with the sole intent of trying to embarrass EDGE (and me as EDGE?s CEO) into agreeing to their unreasonable proposal. Indeed, that is undoubtedly why the attack was on me as an individual, and me as a Board member of the IGDA, and not on EDGE Games, since Papazian thought he could cause maximum embarrassment this way."
[i/]]Unfortunately there is no proof that this conversation took place, so I don't beleive I have any insight to put into this. However if this is true it makes Mobigames look rather bad. Although one could argue they are trying to exploit this maybe-existing loophole in attempts to salvage their game: edge (don't sue me for writing that word please).[/i]
"Third, neither EDGE, nor I, nor Future Publishing, have ever sued anyone over our EDGE trademarks. In almost 30 years in the game industry neither I nor EDGE has ever started any litigation on such issues, so it is not just a twisting of the truth to talk in terms of ?the litigious habits of [?] Tim Langdell,? it is flat-out not true. EDGE has only taken entirely reasonable action that is required of it by law to protect its rights. [b/]Since I personally own no trademarks, there was certainly no truth to the accusation that I have personally been trying to enforce ?my? trademarks. Just to be clear, actions in trademark offices (such as the Namco Souledge issue) are not ?law suits? or ?litigation? they are part of standard trademark office procedures that any responsible company in the game industry is required to follow to protect their trademarks[/b]. By opposing a trademark application a company is not ?suing? the other company, or ?litigating,? they are merely following the process the trademark office requires them to of application/publication/opposition leading to registration or refusal. EDGE has never engaged in anything other than entirely legitimate practices to protect its trademarks."
[i/]Using semantics to argue one's morality is pointless. They obviously released this statement to look better in the view of the public. The point of a patent is to make sure you ideas are not taken by others, making a loss f profit to the main inventor. Unless we are to believe EDGE Gaming invented the word "EDGE" it makes the patent bogus. EDGE knows this, they onyl sure to stall other gaming companies who just end up settling, to move their own gaming production onwards. EDGE Gaming suffers no loss by having a game called EDGE on the apple store, but that is irrelevant to them. They also will not suffer any monetary loss by having a game called "Soul Edge" on the shelf. A patent is meant to represent an idea, or what EDGE represent, not the word itself.[/i]
"Fourth, a Virginia Court document was quoted from that said that EDGE had tried to obfuscate and mislead the court. What was not mentioned (since it did not help fuel the intended goal of getting people angry with me) was that the court order in question was voided with the court later deciding EDGE had not tried to obfuscate or mislead it. There was never any question of me personally behaving badly in that court matter, but even the initial decision that EDGE had acted badly was reversed by the court."
[i/]What document? If it was just a court script, it could have been what EDGE's own Lawyers said during trail or testimony. Without any other information this entire paragraph I believe is bogus, but I'm only a mock lawyer for high school so I'm not exactly sure on this count[/i].
"Last, in my role as CEO of EDGE I have produced all of the several hundred game SKUs EDGE has developed and published since 1979, and thus that statement was entirely true, as was every other statement I have made about my accomplishments over the years. I have never sought to claim someone else?s work as my own, that accusation was only said in an attempt to defame me. EDGE has been active as an indie game developer and publisher at all times over the last several decades and has a number of games in development at this time."
[i/]EDGE is not suing people over stealing EDGE's work, if EDGE was, I'm sure people would be on EDGE's side. EDGE is suing people who are using a word, which , as I have stated before, does nothing to damage EDGE's profits. Although I can't help wonder what profits those may be since EDGE has been producing/creating any games lately from what I or many others had heard. just saying you are making game does nothing to help your standing, 3D realms said they were doing the exact same thing, and who here has a copy of Duke Nuke'm Forever?[/i]
This seems stupid now the we know that Tim was a fake.
I've been to the edgeShamus Young said:
And I've been to the edge
Yes I've been to the edge
I've been to the edge
And God knows if I looked down, looked down
[repeat]
Ahh yes, I remember that album. Still listen to some songs from it too.
Eh.
This thread has had some interesting twists and turns in it.
By this point I have no idea what the truth of the matter is, but as a game development student, (or for that matter, anyone with an interest in creative media), these kinds of stories always annoy me.
Nothing quite as bad as someone using the legal system to abuse you...
This thread has had some interesting twists and turns in it.
By this point I have no idea what the truth of the matter is, but as a game development student, (or for that matter, anyone with an interest in creative media), these kinds of stories always annoy me.
Nothing quite as bad as someone using the legal system to abuse you...
Yeah I'm gonna have to go with Max and scnj, you can't really articulate it better than that.scnj said:
If that image is real I'd report it to EA. They'd have a field day with that since it is a blatant abuse of imagery to steal part of the market from EA.BobisOnlyBob said:EDGE Gaming:
(sorry, couldn't find an alternate image than the one in the article).
This is beyond hypocrisy, this is outright Registered Trademark theft.
If I released a shoe that just 'happened' to say "N I K E" on it with spaces I'm quite sure that NIKE would destroy me. The same would happen if EA found out about that
.
I don't even know what to say to this. I am simply enraged at the thought that some nonsense like this could be going on. This man needs legal action taken against HIM. I don't particularly care about indie developers or iPhone games, but that is just flat-out wrong.
Truly, I must sound like a moron because I can't think of anything intelligent to say about this. My mind is filled with various forms of "WTF?" right now.
I thought I had heard of EDGE games, then I realized it was some strange mixture of Epic Games and Edge magazine.
I think I'm going to go out and buy a copy of Mirror's Edge (a game I had no interest in until now) just to spite the rotten fools at EDGE games and Tim Langdell. I may never even play it, because I am fairly certain I won't enjoy it, but I will enjoy the thought that this "MIRRORS (a new game from) EDGE" ploy isn't going to work.
And yea, I do wish this guy bodily harm. Not death or anything, but in addition to his reputation being ruined, I hope he gets punched in the face. Actually, I take that back, because the man would obviously sue the person who punched him for copious amounts of cash and laugh about it all the way back to HIS BOARD POSITION AT IGDA. Argh!
Truly, I must sound like a moron because I can't think of anything intelligent to say about this. My mind is filled with various forms of "WTF?" right now.
I thought I had heard of EDGE games, then I realized it was some strange mixture of Epic Games and Edge magazine.
I think I'm going to go out and buy a copy of Mirror's Edge (a game I had no interest in until now) just to spite the rotten fools at EDGE games and Tim Langdell. I may never even play it, because I am fairly certain I won't enjoy it, but I will enjoy the thought that this "MIRRORS (a new game from) EDGE" ploy isn't going to work.
And yea, I do wish this guy bodily harm. Not death or anything, but in addition to his reputation being ruined, I hope he gets punched in the face. Actually, I take that back, because the man would obviously sue the person who punched him for copious amounts of cash and laugh about it all the way back to HIS BOARD POSITION AT IGDA. Argh!
How did his "legal" complaint even get passed? I mean, it's not like as though "Edge Gaming" is the name of another game! Who passed this kind of thing...? Anyways, I wish no physical harm on him, but someone really has to give him and his apparent crack team of ninja lawyers a reality check.
I'm particularly interested in this little bit of community service on the part of edge games:
"DEVELOPERS:
EDGE is always interested to receive game submissions and to hear from independent developers interested in working with us:
dev AT edgegames DOT com"
~ www.edgegames.com
We really should warn Tim Langdell of vapor ware scams. Someone might trick edge games into trademarking something useless!
"DEVELOPERS:
EDGE is always interested to receive game submissions and to hear from independent developers interested in working with us:
dev AT edgegames DOT com"
~ www.edgegames.com
We really should warn Tim Langdell of vapor ware scams. Someone might trick edge games into trademarking something useless!
Ugh, I just lost my desire to eat after reading about that. This Tim Langdell is a grade A douche.
It's really sad how this guy is manipulating the system like this... No correction, this is INFURIATING how he is manipulating the system like this.
It's really sad how this guy is manipulating the system like this... No correction, this is INFURIATING how he is manipulating the system like this.
"Tim Langdell sodomizes the corpses of orphaned children who he may or may not have killed with his bare hands."
This line seems to have set the tone for this thread.
Personally, I think someone should announce a game with this as it's title, then following the rush from Edge Games to threaten to sue your ass, agree to change it. The game would get a lot of press simply from having that name, and would probably be remembered for it.
Shame nobody's going to read this, since it's four pages in.
This line seems to have set the tone for this thread.
Personally, I think someone should announce a game with this as it's title, then following the rush from Edge Games to threaten to sue your ass, agree to change it. The game would get a lot of press simply from having that name, and would probably be remembered for it.
Shame nobody's going to read this, since it's four pages in.