poncho14 said:
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).