Edge or Edgy: Part Two

[D_987]

And really, the only thing a high post count on here tells me is that the author is unable or unwilling to seek out a better level of discussion elsewhere. It's like flaunting a high post count on GameFAQs or something.

Thanks for that pleasant insult. I would rather you didn't take one member and use them as a representative of the whole forum.

Oh, and this - "The Escapist staff is the first team of journalists I know of to do original research. (I certainly didn't.)" - is absolute bollocks if you're insinuating this is the first site to not base its articles on other stuff online. Eurogamer's piece involved plenty of original research. TIGSource's stuff involves more investigative research than any other coverage.

Surely there is a difference between investigative research and actually communicating with the parties? Besides which who is to say what is right on the matter, at present nobody has the full facts. At the end of the day it appears the vast majority of what is said is opinion.

Whilst it would appear, at least from my perspective, that Mobigames have the edge in this case if only because EDGE haven't released a game for an extremely long period of time and therefore are not using their trademark (or something along those lines, to be honest I haven't read up on the case in a while). Having said that, he poster above is claiming otherwise, as is the article so I'm not sure what to believe.

At the end of the day all journalism is going to be sensationalized to a degree. I am sure many sites may wish to paint Langdell to have no case at all, and will therefore display only evidence against him, likewise some articles - like this one - may argue otherwise.

As for this article however, I think I have to agree with georgek when they stated:

Spoiler

You seem to be giving props to The Escapist for trying to be objective, but that's exactly the problem. The articles demonstrate a baffling disregard for the history and context of the dispute, as anyone with fifteen minutes to spend could find out for themselves. As a result the conclusions drawn, for example that Mobigame is fighting because they think they've been treated unfairly, are so myopic and illogical they become laughable.

I believe they are correct in the sense that the article doesn't address Langell's past records or his apparent history of unsavoury business tactics. Everything else has been stated before so I'm not going to bother addressing them.

 

[daz_O_O]

Anyone else tempted to release a series of flash games called Edge something?
I say anyone with any flash or java ability should make a little game, spam the internet with them and leave contact details - see what TL has to say about that. If I could shoot one person in this entire world it would be this man. In my opinion he is the lowest form of life - the epitome of Andrew Ryan's 'Parasites'.

For those saying the escapist is siding with the bigger company, get a clue. There's no evidence that Edge Games consists of anyone BUT Tim Langdell - Mobigames on the other hand will be coming off this lawsuit as the indie heroes of the games industry and I applaud them for it.

ARGH! This really has me riled!!!

 

[ben---neb]

Sigh. Just shows what happens when you let the government intervene in markets. Without state inducted "trademarks" then Mobigame could publish their work and Edge games could actually try and do somethig productive.

Best be trolling. Trademarks are not a "state inducted" anything. They are a judicial measure which are demanded by businesses. They serve two extremely useful functions; protecting a businesses identity and reputation, and allowing customers to make informed choices on purchasing (see: the economic/game theory concept of "peaches and lemons"). Unlike other forms of IP, they have no chilling effect; you can evade a trademark simply by naming your brand/product something else (and, if you're smart, not telling the competition in advance so they trademark that as well).
In short, not only are they demanded by the participants of a free market, but they are essential to its function as they allow some relation to exist between demand and pricing. Also, unlike other forms of intellectual property, their "use it or lose it" nature means that they cannot usually be "sat on" by IP trolls. This case is a relatively rare and unfortunate exception.
In conclusion: Go Mobigames! Make that system work!

I never thought I'd say this but (drumroll please) you're...you're...right. You've convinced me. I'll concentrate my scorn against patents and the like instead of trademarks.

A historic occassion if ever there was, someone winning a forum argument.

 

[Orange Monkey]

A great report but one must wonder what all this fighting will eventually achieve.

 

[mk-1601]

Thanks for that pleasant insult. I would rather you didn't take one member and use them as a representative of the whole forum.

You're quite right and I apologise.

 

[HobbesMkii]

Well, I'm thoroughly confused. I was pretty confident The Escapist was going with their seemingly regular move to side with the larger (or possibly more industry-connected) group (I'll bet they get some pretty sweet access to new games from it).

Err. Did I fail an irony check ? The Escapist has nothing to gain from "siding with Langdell". And if ONE thing is clear in this mess, it's that Edge Games isn't producing any sweet new games... or any games at all.

Unless, of course, The Escapist views siding with a member of the International Game Developers Association's Board of Directors as potentially beneficial. Shows they've got the IGDA's back. Sure, it doesn't score them shit from Edge, because Edge makes nothing. But the IGDA distanced themselves from the call for Langdell's removal (implying a somewhat support of their Board Member, if not outright). You're viewing gains as purely being Single Party to Single Party. You're completely ignoring the fact that they can generate goodwill industry wide by being industry shills.

 

[alexwhiteside]

Seeing as I'm actually in the process of compiling the legal documents related to Langdell's trademark actions, in addition to reading Mobigame and Langdell's accounts, I can safely say that this article is a load of horse-shit. Langdell repeatedly misrepresents his trademarks, not only to third parties but to the trademark board, and only escaped sanctions in the federal case brought by Velocity Micro because he made an out-of-court settlement with that company to have the matter dropped.

 

[chongololo]

Edge games ported their games to new platforms and sell them there. It may not sell much, but it counts as producing a product, as highlighted in the initial article.

The Edge Games site has a list for a tiny handful of mobile games, none of which are available nor have they been available for some years now. The only concrete evidence of any actual game was a port of Bobby Bearing to a few Nokia phones nearly a decade ago and even then it's not clear who actually released the game (or for that matter owns the rights to the game). There would appear to be no Edge Games currently available to purchase. So no, they don't sell much, 'they' don't sell anything.

Also, re: 'Edge Games ported their games' - it would appear as if there is only one employee of Edge Games. Their 'CEO'. Tim Langdell.

 

[mlkjhgfds]

Well, I'm thoroughly confused. I was pretty confident The Escapist was going with their seemingly regular move to side with the larger (or possibly more industry-connected) group (I'll bet they get some pretty sweet access to new games from it).

Err. Did I fail an irony check ? The Escapist has nothing to gain from "siding with Langdell". And if ONE thing is clear in this mess, it's that Edge Games isn't producing any sweet new games... or any games at all.

Unless, of course, The Escapist views siding with a member of the International Game Developers Association's Board of Directors as potentially beneficial. Shows they've got the IGDA's back. Sure, it doesn't score them shit from Edge, because Edge makes nothing. But the IGDA distanced themselves from the call for Langdell's removal (implying a somewhat support of their Board Member, if not outright). You're viewing gains as purely being Single Party to Single Party. You're completely ignoring the fact that they can generate goodwill industry wide by being industry shills.

The IGDA did call a board meeting on TL's removal, unless I missed something. (didn't go real smooth though, seems the IGDA elected members were both confused and unwilling)

-> http://igdaed.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/special-meeting-update/ There we go.

Industry shills - naaaah. Come on.

Evil scheming editors?

Seriously?

 

[Neonbob]

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

tell that to Paris Hilton, she got the word "hot" copyrighted. I think Edge games needs to let go of the '90s, nothing good came from that period in time.

1) I...I hope you're kidding...
*searches*
...dear god, why?
*devolves into venom spewing entity away from keyboard*

2) Heeeeeey. I was born then.
*pouts*

Honestly, I just find Langdell too easy to hate to judge this objectively.
So I won't bother.
But I hope this judge gets to deal with him.

 

[HobbesMkii]

Unless, of course, The Escapist views siding with a member of the International Game Developers Association's Board of Directors as potentially beneficial. Shows they've got the IGDA's back. Sure, it doesn't score them shit from Edge, because Edge makes nothing. But the IGDA distanced themselves from the call for Langdell's removal (implying a somewhat support of their Board Member, if not outright). You're viewing gains as purely being Single Party to Single Party. You're completely ignoring the fact that they can generate goodwill industry wide by being industry shills.

The IGDA did call a board meeting on TL's removal, unless I missed something. (didn't go real smooth though, seems the IGDA elected members were both confused and unwilling)

-> http://igdaed.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/special-meeting-update/ There we go.

Industry shills - naaaah. Come on.

Evil scheming editors?

Seriously?

Who called them evil or scheming? I'm just saying it makes strategic sense, since clearly the IGDA didn't feel the need to question the ethics of their board member. It's kinda a thing in journalism. You throw some positive press in one direction and later on, people reward you. And other people know you're worthy of being rewarded. And then maybe down the line that close access allows you to learn the true story they forgot they didn't want you to know.

This is really just a very minor skirmish that we're making a big deal about. It's just some guy complaining over the copyright of the title on a freaking iPhone app, for pete's sake! In the world of videogames, it's about as important as the seventeenth enemy you shoot in an FPS. But, the point is that because it's minor but with big attention, The Escapist can appear to choose one side over the other, (not outright, of course) with relatively little fallout (it's not like they're choosing XBox over PS3, here). This isn't "evil" or "scheming." I never once said that. Is it shady journalism? I feel it is (you seem to feel different), but hey, again, it's an old school tactic. Everybody does it. That makes it okay, right? I mean, I'm not saying they're always industry shills (although, except on some Tuesdays, I have a hard time remembering instances where they're not), but that here's a case where it's easy and relatively "okay" to be shills.

 

[Gaderael]

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.

But if they did, they'd sue for using Edge.

 

[mlkjhgfds]

The IGDA did call a board meeting on TL's removal, unless I missed something. (didn't go real smooth though, seems the IGDA elected members were both confused and unwilling)

-> http://igdaed.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/special-meeting-update/ There we go.

Industry shills - naaaah. Come on.

Evil scheming editors?

Seriously?

Who called them evil or scheming? I'm just saying it makes strategic sense, since clearly the IGDA didn't feel the need to question the ethics of their board member. It's kinda a thing in journalism. You throw some positive press in one direction and later on, people reward you. And other people know you're worthy of being rewarded. And then maybe down the line that close access allows you to learn the true story they forgot they didn't want you to know.

This is really just a very minor skirmish that we're making a big deal about. It's just some guy complaining over the copyright of the title on a freaking iPhone app, for pete's sake! In the world of videogames, it's about as important as the seventeenth enemy you shoot in an FPS. But, the point is that because it's minor but with big attention, The Escapist can appear to choose one side over the other, (not outright, of course) with relatively little fallout (it's not like they're choosing XBox over PS3, here). This isn't "evil" or "scheming." I never once said that. Is it shady journalism? I feel it is (you seem to feel different), but hey, again, it's an old school tactic. Everybody does it. That makes it okay, right? I mean, I'm not saying they're always industry shills (although, except on some Tuesdays, I have a hard time remembering instances where they're not), but that here's a case where it's easy and relatively "okay" to be shills.

Alright, you didn't say anything about evil scheming - I did.

If it's such a good deal ("little fallout"), why are ALL the other gaming zines/communities (that I know of) jumping on the hate wagon? They get Indie Points, sure, but I can't imagine the Escapist editors thinking "we got a positive review of Braid somewhere, let's piss on the indies now".

Indirectly (-) supporting Edge here doesn't look like any kind of smart strategy anyway. Edge Games, Tim Langdell - one IP troll. Nobody the big guys can relate to, when they go and crush some other company they make it quick and dirty and speed through the PR consequences - anyone remember FreeCraft? Thought so.
The IGDA ? They can't even get their own organization straight. Langdell's been trying to give himself credit by showing around his title. Who'd have thought it'd actually WORK...
Now, enter the Escapist (twirls moustache) : "Let's omit facts and send some good press to the gaming world's current Butt Monkey for absolutely no reason since he's got nothing to give us, no matter how unpopular that's going to make the site" (readers' reaction was clearly negative and if any planning was made that was to be expected) "so that the guys with actual games know we'll be THEIR ***** anytime" ? THAT would be dumb grade-B-movie evil scheming right there.

Then again I don't have any idea how the Escapist usually handles this stuff. Still feeling I don't get your point.

Whatever~

 

[clicketycrack]

Didn't somebody cleverer already make a joke about this.
Edgy Edgerton Edging Toward The Edge of The Mighty Edge of Edgyness

 

[pneuma08]

So when an article says he has a case, well, I'm sure I don't need to say that -yet- again.

Doesn't the Eurogamer article say he (Dr. Langdell) has a case? And if it's in doubt, then that's not for us, as the Grand Internet Mob, to decide.

Honestly, reading up on this, I believe both sides have a case. Edge games have a trademark; Mobigames may be able to undermine the validity of the mark.

In any event, I can sympathize with people saying the article is somewhat unfulfilling, as it doesn't mention Dr. Langdell's shady dealings (not entirely relevant) or previous court decisions (which are legally relevant), and instead has laser focus on the dispute. The result is somewhat out of context and a little late to the party, although the fact-checking is definitively worthwhile.

 

[jimblackler]

Honestly, reading up on this, I believe both sides have a case. Edge games have a trademark; Mobigames may be able to undermine the validity of the mark.

I literally facepalmed reading this.

There is a difference between a trademark (which is what you automatically have if you trade) and a registered trademark (which is optional but has a number of advantages).

Langdell doesn't have a trademark for the word 'edge' because he has not traded with it since the early 90s. His website is a facade, the products non-existent. There's a very easy way anyone can check this - try and buy one.

He has absolutely. No. Case.

There is no use speaking of Langdell "protecting his mark". He doesn't have a mark.

 

[CountCagliostro]

Sigh. Just shows what happens when you let the government intervene in markets. Without state inducted "trademarks" then Mobigame could publish their work and Edge games could actually try and do somethig productive.

Best be trolling. Trademarks are not a "state inducted" anything. They are a judicial measure which are demanded by businesses. They serve two extremely useful functions; protecting a businesses identity and reputation, and allowing customers to make informed choices on purchasing (see: the economic/game theory concept of "peaches and lemons"). Unlike other forms of IP, they have no chilling effect; you can evade a trademark simply by naming your brand/product something else (and, if you're smart, not telling the competition in advance so they trademark that as well).
In short, not only are they demanded by the participants of a free market, but they are essential to its function as they allow some relation to exist between demand and pricing. Also, unlike other forms of intellectual property, their "use it or lose it" nature means that they cannot usually be "sat on" by IP trolls. This case is a relatively rare and unfortunate exception.
In conclusion: Go Mobigames! Make that system work!

I never thought I'd say this but (drumroll please) you're...you're...right. You've convinced me. I'll concentrate my scorn against patents and the like instead of trademarks.

A historic occassion if ever there was, someone winning a forum argument.

You, sir, are a man of good grace and honour. From this day I shall consider us brothers.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Edge Games is just a glorified racketeering operation.

In my opinion anyway

 

[pneuma08]

- snip -

I am sorry that I do not possess your infinite knowledge and wisdom regarding both what constitutes a proper trademark and all of the evidence fully laid out in this case, even before being presented to a lawfully appointed (or elected) judge.

Clearly, if there were more people of your caliber, we would not have use of courts of law at all.

But seriously now, I do hope that you are correct and, should this thing go to court, it ends up justly served with the alleged trademark held by Edge games taken out of their hands. Until then, however, neither you nor I nor anyone else have any say about whether Dr. Langdell really has or really, really doesn't have a mark.

 

[Silva]

I firmly disagree with The Escapist's shaky conclusion on the matter, and am not that impressed with the way the article was written. It reads like a legal disclaimer, which is precisely what you don't want when you're communicating a legal matter to the layman. And the layman in this sense is probably most of the audience reading the article. This probably a forgivable result of a team who don't normally have to read through legal information trying to summarise it for a first time, working with people who probably aren't capable of translating it back into ordinary English.

I still applaud the research that went into the article. It is refreshing to see some professional journalistic seeking and an attempt at true objectivity. It is jumping to conclusions prematurely, at the end (basically in the last paragraph) that is the mistake here. The rest is tolerable if one takes the time to decipher it.

On the matter of the case itself, I agree with Shamus in that Langdell is probably not doing the right thing in any moral sense.

If there is any legal case behind him, it's purely technical, in which case the law system is probably messed up and/or wrong for society. More likely, the blame lies squarely upon him. A publisher should have no right to call issue to an ancient trademark like this. Even if there was a confusion between the two "Edge" games, and people did buy the other product thinking they were getting the old-school Edge, the losses would be far smaller than the legal losses in the case - and here's the real clincher - for both sides. So not only is Langdell making a case on virtually no evidence, with no products to actually back up what he's saying, but he's almost certainly losing money making the case. It's a lose/lose situation.

Even from a practical, cynical and coldly amoral standpoint, this case should go to Mobigames. From an impractical, idealistic and fierily moral standpoint, this case should go to Mobigames. From an impartial, objective and neutral standpoint, this case should go to Mobigames. So let's not pretend this is a more ambiguous court event (God knows they do occur). This is as open and shut as a trademark case could be.