Edge or Edgy: The Clash of Two Game Makers - Update
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Yah, but i think they're called "Edge Games".. not just edge. I think the fact still remains that this is a fairly regular business dispute, which has equally un-innocent people involved in a pretty unkind environment. I think that Edge Games have been arbitrarily targeted, just because of the unique relationship these two companies have.Beltom1066 said:
Now this shed some very interesting light on the issue, but I am nonetheless not sure that Edge Games have a legitimate dispute. As I understand it, as a general rule, the more general and widely-used the trademarked term in question, the more narrow the categories of goods and services which will infringe. With "Edge" being no more than a common noun, I suspect any court would give it a very limited jurisdiction. Thus, if you were trying to set up a computer games company called Edge, Mr. Langdell's complaint would unquestionably be justified; however, given the common nature of the word in question, a single computer game might be sufficiently distinct as to not represent an actual infringement.
(Not a legal opinion, etc.)
(Not a legal opinion, etc.)
People seem to be under the assumption that because something is legal, it's automatically right. I keep getting the impression here that "oh what he's doing is legal so he isn't a massive dildo after all" No.mlkjhgfds said:
It's like saying we shouldn't criticize some conglomerate for polluting a lot. They may legally be able to be able to, but that doesn't make it any less of a dick move on their part. Or we shouldn't criticize some (-Godwins Law Phrase Redacted-) for saying we should (-Godwins Law Phrase Redacted-). Sure he can legally say that, it doesn't mean we're wrong for calling him out on it.
Why doesn't BLizzard or Apple sue people for making products with word Blizzard or Apple in it? Because they would look like idiots and face a wave of criticism like this Tim Langdell guy is. Edge the video game has nothing to due with Edge the game company. Neither does The Edge the movie. Or the upcoming game Edge of Twilight, a phrase Tim Langdell just applied to trademark. Gee I wonder why he did that?
Tim Langdell's company exists for the sole purpose of abusing copyright law. He should not be sitting on the IGDA board. Abusing copyright law, no matter the legality of it, is still a dick move. Nobody here needs to feel bad about calling a douche bag out for acting like a douche bag.
tl;dr Tim Langdell is still a massive tool well deserving of all the increased scorn, scrutiny, criticism, attention, and nerd rage he's been getting flung at him. Keep it up.
I rescind previous statement. He is a dick, thank you. Which has actually made me wonder one thing: were any of his shit games being re-ported when Mobigames named their game? Because if nothing his company made a decade plus ago was being replayed at the time, I can totally see why Mobigames went forward they way they did, because he wasn't defending the copyright.CD-R said:
yea, Blizzard probably could, but they don't.Valdsator said:
Do you know why?
Because their business turns a profit on _video games_ NOT bullying people into purchasing licensing over trademark infringement. Sure, Langdell never won any $ in court because it's all settled outside of court. The money he is extorting isn't on the public record.
I've been following this issue since day 1, and have read _everything_ including court documents, transcribed emails, forum posts and all the rest. The journo here is in the "hmm, well it _is_ legal" stage of grief. But really, when you start to uncover more and more about Tim's character you come to the grim realization that while this _is_ legal, that may very well be what makes it so utterly awful.
Being within your legal rights sadly has very little to do with being a good person. You've got to have your own laws to live by. I believe they're called morals or something...
EDIT: also to the "well do you just expect me to give up my company i've had for 30 odd years?" question from Langdell. Well, yes. Yes I do. If I had a video game company (and I do) and I wasn't making/organzing a video game for even a full year, let alone 15, I'd have a hard time keeping that business afloat, right? The business is pretty much dead at that point, no? Of course, we all know this has nothing to do with making and selling video games and everything to do with taking advantage of the legal system.
"Why doesn't BLizzard or Apple sue people for making products with word Blizzard or Apple in it? Because they would look like idiots and face a wave of criticism like this Tim Langdell guy is."
How I wish that were true. But that is not the reason, and it is not how IP law works. Those companies usually don't sue because the products are not in the same sphere of goods and services (and are obligated to take action if they are), but certainly do sue when they are in the same market. See Apple Corp v Apple Records (or whatever they were actually called in the case): dispute between the Beatles label and Apple computers, primarily over iTunes moving into the music business and hence the same market. Blizzard are yet to have there trademark tested in their own market, to the best of my knowledge. But if they were, then "looking like a dick" aside, they would probably have no choice but to take action to defend their mark or risk losing it.
None of which makes me support Langdell, as I said above.
How I wish that were true. But that is not the reason, and it is not how IP law works. Those companies usually don't sue because the products are not in the same sphere of goods and services (and are obligated to take action if they are), but certainly do sue when they are in the same market. See Apple Corp v Apple Records (or whatever they were actually called in the case): dispute between the Beatles label and Apple computers, primarily over iTunes moving into the music business and hence the same market. Blizzard are yet to have there trademark tested in their own market, to the best of my knowledge. But if they were, then "looking like a dick" aside, they would probably have no choice but to take action to defend their mark or risk losing it.
None of which makes me support Langdell, as I said above.
Doesn't work like that, you don't just patent the word you patent it in an application IE Apple didn't trademark the whole word "apple" They trademarked it prolly for something like Computer hardware and software usage.(+ a ton others related to their company).ben---neb said:
Differing companies can trademark the same word, think dairy queen and their "blizzard" icecream, and Blizzard and their games. Same word differing applications.
You could possibly trademark something like "T.H.E" gaming company but not the actual word because the only usage is in speech to denote something.
Mobigames had never heard of Edge Games prior to being harassed by Langdell, it's already been discussed. When They received the first letter signed by Tim Langdell in April, they suggested to change the name of the game to EDGY, and you know what Langdell did? He made an application for the trademark EDGY, just to block'em. This has been known for about two months or more now and Langdell EVADED all questions regarding this act, until recently. (he needed time to think of his strategy?)/ He did the same to Souledge, or Edge of Twilight, and more recently to Killer Edge Racing.
Edge Games never released a video game, it is a one man company. If you want to know who is Tim Langdell you should read this page: http://tigsource.com/pages/edge-games/
There is also a long going thread on the IGDA's forums where Langdell's lies are all put to the test, with evidence dug up, hard questions asked, and no response from Langdell, except rare elusive ones that totally fail to answer what he's asked.
Just a tiny bit of reading of all the information dug up on the IGDA's forums or TIGsource would havemade it clear to the author that Langdell DOESN'T HAVE A CASE, since he has not realeased products in years, and his "evidence" that Bobby Bearing was released on mobile phones or that other games he sold during the past five years were all DEBUNKED.
Shame on the Escapist for this parody of an article. And shame to commenters saying that now they "know all the facts".
Edge Games never released a video game, it is a one man company. If you want to know who is Tim Langdell you should read this page: http://tigsource.com/pages/edge-games/
There is also a long going thread on the IGDA's forums where Langdell's lies are all put to the test, with evidence dug up, hard questions asked, and no response from Langdell, except rare elusive ones that totally fail to answer what he's asked.
Just a tiny bit of reading of all the information dug up on the IGDA's forums or TIGsource would havemade it clear to the author that Langdell DOESN'T HAVE A CASE, since he has not realeased products in years, and his "evidence" that Bobby Bearing was released on mobile phones or that other games he sold during the past five years were all DEBUNKED.
Shame on the Escapist for this parody of an article. And shame to commenters saying that now they "know all the facts".
This is a whitewash. If you ignore context or facts, Langdell is a victim!
Blithely accepting that Langdell's trademarks are legitimate or enforceable makes the whole piece pointless. The question isn't whether it's right to be able to trademark a word, it's exactly what Edge owns, whether they have a claim to it, where it's applicable and whether they've acted appropriately, in Mobigames' case or in the various historical cases that Edge until recently boasted about on their website.
Sure, the silly end of the games press has jumped on the story to demonise Langdell, but many more diligent people have been following it too.
Other IGDA members have been scrutinising Langdell's history closely on their message boards. Several people who have worked or corresponded with Langdell/Edge in the past have added their voices. And Sheridan's (solicitors) think that Mobigames at least have a case.
If you'd prefer an overview of the affair which doesn't blur or omit established facts, try Eurogamer: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-edge-of-reason
Blithely accepting that Langdell's trademarks are legitimate or enforceable makes the whole piece pointless. The question isn't whether it's right to be able to trademark a word, it's exactly what Edge owns, whether they have a claim to it, where it's applicable and whether they've acted appropriately, in Mobigames' case or in the various historical cases that Edge until recently boasted about on their website.
Sure, the silly end of the games press has jumped on the story to demonise Langdell, but many more diligent people have been following it too.
Other IGDA members have been scrutinising Langdell's history closely on their message boards. Several people who have worked or corresponded with Langdell/Edge in the past have added their voices. And Sheridan's (solicitors) think that Mobigames at least have a case.
If you'd prefer an overview of the affair which doesn't blur or omit established facts, try Eurogamer: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-edge-of-reason
It doesn't work like that. When you copyright something you prevent the use of a certain word within a certain area of the market. If I made a company that sold socks and called it fluffy (I have no idea why this was the first idea that came to mind) it would be copyrighted within the clothing industry. This means no one else can use the word "fluffy" to sell clothes, but they could use it to sell food or technology or whatever the hell else they want as long as it isn't clothes. The main reason is to prevent brand confusion (people buying the wrong thing or using a better known product to advertise their own by using the others brand name). So Blizzard haven't copyrighted the word Blizzard just it's use withtin the games industry. The same can be said of EDGE, you could sell edge razorblades or edge socks or edge tables, just not any edge games. If you did EDGE have to legally defend their copyright or they forfeit it and lose out on money advertising etc.Pallindromemordnillap said:
Don't get me wrong I haven't picked a side because to be completely honest I've just come back from holiday and have only just heard about this entire thing.
No offense Andy but I was not impressed by this bit of writing.
While I can understand playing devils advocate, you've completely omitted several key facts of the situation to paint Tim as the victim. Making this nothing more than yellow-journalism.
While I can understand the right to protect his trademark, pursuing only lesser known companies/games for trademark infringement is a key indicator that this guy is nothing more than patent troll.
Why go for Edge of Twilight and Edgy instead of Mirrors Edge? because he knew, legally, EA could beat him in a fair fight. If he was truly looking to protect his trademark and had a valid case he'd take on EA as well to protect his IP, isn't that supposed to be all he cares about?
Furthermore why do you think he has reached an amicable resolution with Edge of Twilight (even after pulling the dick move of copyrighting their game AFTER threatening them)? It's because the company is broke! there's no money to milk. Fuzzeyes is in it's death throws and this vulture swooped in too late.
While Mobi may have pulled some dick moves on Tim as well, I can understand being pissed off at this patent troll coming in and being a leach on the game development industry.
He's a patent troll at best clinging on to 80's ports and vaporware - if he wants to be taken serious as a game developer again he needs to "shit or get off the pot".
While I can understand playing devils advocate, you've completely omitted several key facts of the situation to paint Tim as the victim. Making this nothing more than yellow-journalism.
While I can understand the right to protect his trademark, pursuing only lesser known companies/games for trademark infringement is a key indicator that this guy is nothing more than patent troll.
Why go for Edge of Twilight and Edgy instead of Mirrors Edge? because he knew, legally, EA could beat him in a fair fight. If he was truly looking to protect his trademark and had a valid case he'd take on EA as well to protect his IP, isn't that supposed to be all he cares about?
Furthermore why do you think he has reached an amicable resolution with Edge of Twilight (even after pulling the dick move of copyrighting their game AFTER threatening them)? It's because the company is broke! there's no money to milk. Fuzzeyes is in it's death throws and this vulture swooped in too late.
While Mobi may have pulled some dick moves on Tim as well, I can understand being pissed off at this patent troll coming in and being a leach on the game development industry.
He's a patent troll at best clinging on to 80's ports and vaporware - if he wants to be taken serious as a game developer again he needs to "shit or get off the pot".
how is the law possibly on his side, the trademark of his is for Edge games not the specific word edge excuse me if im wrong but i dont think your allowed to sue someone for the use of a word thats part of your trademark, if so many companys would be stopped window companys groceries etc. this man is greedy and lives off the scraps of the gaming world by attacking small time developers (mirrors edge wasnt a problem i wonder why though sc) and extorting them, my point is this man is in the wrong and he knows hes in the wrong but he uses technicalities and loopholes to prove himself right. a leech by any other name
Ive been reading about this thing for a loooooong time now...
after looking both ways i have simply come to the conclusion that they are both being dicks about this whole thing.
Yes a claim to a word with little work to throw behind the trademark is shady, its legal if not necessarily right, but i have no desire to go on an internet crusade about it.
But Mobigames...after reading this article it sounds very much like they were being dicks to. If their lawyer knew about the infringement and yet did nothing about it, while knowing the risks, well at that point its every man for himself.
Also, imo the renaming to Edgy sounded like a decent proposal actually. After all if your options are, change your name or get your ass ridden about it, id change it.
Mobigames' Edge did have some hype going behind it, and one of the excuses i have heard is that they didn't want to change the name in order to avoid confusion. However, if the problem is you keep the name then get pulled form a store and not make money, or change, have confusion, but make money anyway then id change the name.
In the end I think they both need to lay off the press and settle this. Its gotten pretty stupid and has now defamed both Edge games and Mobigames. At least in my mind.
after looking both ways i have simply come to the conclusion that they are both being dicks about this whole thing.
Yes a claim to a word with little work to throw behind the trademark is shady, its legal if not necessarily right, but i have no desire to go on an internet crusade about it.
But Mobigames...after reading this article it sounds very much like they were being dicks to. If their lawyer knew about the infringement and yet did nothing about it, while knowing the risks, well at that point its every man for himself.
Also, imo the renaming to Edgy sounded like a decent proposal actually. After all if your options are, change your name or get your ass ridden about it, id change it.
Mobigames' Edge did have some hype going behind it, and one of the excuses i have heard is that they didn't want to change the name in order to avoid confusion. However, if the problem is you keep the name then get pulled form a store and not make money, or change, have confusion, but make money anyway then id change the name.
In the end I think they both need to lay off the press and settle this. Its gotten pretty stupid and has now defamed both Edge games and Mobigames. At least in my mind.
If he owns the trademark "Edge of twilight" does this mean he can now sue the makers of that "Twilight" game that was reported a couple of weeks ago?
Interesting if slightly threadbare on the facts take on the situation. It seems strange that Andy neglected to mention that it's not so clear cut given there's serious doubt as to whether Mr Langdell *is* in fact legally within his rights.
Yes, he's entitled to enforce the trademark legally but, and this is a pretty important but, he also has to be actively using said trademark and producing work under it. The last Edge Games release that can be actively traced is a BREW port of Bobby Bearing. From 2003. That's 6 years ago and in the meantime, no products appear to have been produced. What he has laid claim to being involved in, it would seem, the authors and IP holders have little awareness of. Naturally, I'm going to assume that before the article went live painting Langdell as a victim this information was checked, right? The stuff on the IGDA forums where someone has been in touch with the IP holders who've made it clear they've not made any deals with Langdell, that he's not produced their work or as far as they're aware ever had anything to do with it, right?
Pretty important stuff before you go saying "the uncomfortable truth is he has a legitimate case" when -that very point- is in question. Unless you've evidence to the contrary and everyone else is lying, of course. Perhaps Andy knows where we can pick up and purchase some of these products as I'm sure the actual IP holders would love to know. It's also worth noting that the developers of Bobby Bearing (the original version) have mentioned that they don't believe Tim owns the rights to it anyway.
Throw in the massive weight of evidence from developers and people who've worked with or alongside Langdell and it seems disingenuous in the extreme to come out and paint him as an unwitting victim in matters. Regardless of the articles claims, it's abundantly clear that for the best part of 30 years one might be able to safely assume that perhaps Mr Langdell isn't entirely honest in his dealings if reports are to be believed. Allegations ranging from not paying developers to not paying for stands at computer shows to claiming rights to IP that's not his to lay claim to, it's an unhappy picture of the man that gets painted from people within the industry who have absolutely no reason to lie.
Also, worth checking the evidence supplied by Mr Langdell to the trademark office over the years. Some of it is intriguingly different to the actual product. Or perhaps Andy can explain away the faked Edge Mag covers too?
I'll admit, I'm completely boggled by this article. It brings nothing new to the table but (if I'm being generous) a willful attempt at Devils Advocacy that relies on ignorance of proven fact and public record to be believed 100%.
And as for Edge/Edgy - why should Mobigames have accepted Tim's "generous" offer? If it's the case that he truly has no right to the name then they've just played into his hands and strengthened any battles he may have against the next person thus perpetuating what could (at this time "possibly") be a wrongness. If they did change the games name to Edgy then what possible right does he have to register it for them, to lay claim to a trademark he doesn't even own relating to a game that's also absolutely NOTHING to do with him?
It's also disingenuous to suggest that Mobigames *should* have informed Langdell about them registering Edgy. It's not his business and he doesn't need to be informed. Do Mobigames need to inform him when they're going the toilet too?
All that without going in to how Mr Langdell would have to prove that there would be confusion in the eyes of the public between his branding and Mobigames actual game. That'd certainly be an interesting one to see played out... oh wait, he's accused them of stealing from a considerably different game on the grounds that it's of the same perspective and you hit a few switches. Bingo, I'm sure you'll agree.
All told, a depressing take that seems to want to ignore any evidence for the sake of a contrarian position. I'm not sure what it was supposed to achieve, but congratulations, if nothing else it's made the ever evolving public statement of Mr Langdell. Something to be proud of, I'm sure.
Yes, he's entitled to enforce the trademark legally but, and this is a pretty important but, he also has to be actively using said trademark and producing work under it. The last Edge Games release that can be actively traced is a BREW port of Bobby Bearing. From 2003. That's 6 years ago and in the meantime, no products appear to have been produced. What he has laid claim to being involved in, it would seem, the authors and IP holders have little awareness of. Naturally, I'm going to assume that before the article went live painting Langdell as a victim this information was checked, right? The stuff on the IGDA forums where someone has been in touch with the IP holders who've made it clear they've not made any deals with Langdell, that he's not produced their work or as far as they're aware ever had anything to do with it, right?
Pretty important stuff before you go saying "the uncomfortable truth is he has a legitimate case" when -that very point- is in question. Unless you've evidence to the contrary and everyone else is lying, of course. Perhaps Andy knows where we can pick up and purchase some of these products as I'm sure the actual IP holders would love to know. It's also worth noting that the developers of Bobby Bearing (the original version) have mentioned that they don't believe Tim owns the rights to it anyway.
Throw in the massive weight of evidence from developers and people who've worked with or alongside Langdell and it seems disingenuous in the extreme to come out and paint him as an unwitting victim in matters. Regardless of the articles claims, it's abundantly clear that for the best part of 30 years one might be able to safely assume that perhaps Mr Langdell isn't entirely honest in his dealings if reports are to be believed. Allegations ranging from not paying developers to not paying for stands at computer shows to claiming rights to IP that's not his to lay claim to, it's an unhappy picture of the man that gets painted from people within the industry who have absolutely no reason to lie.
Also, worth checking the evidence supplied by Mr Langdell to the trademark office over the years. Some of it is intriguingly different to the actual product. Or perhaps Andy can explain away the faked Edge Mag covers too?
I'll admit, I'm completely boggled by this article. It brings nothing new to the table but (if I'm being generous) a willful attempt at Devils Advocacy that relies on ignorance of proven fact and public record to be believed 100%.
And as for Edge/Edgy - why should Mobigames have accepted Tim's "generous" offer? If it's the case that he truly has no right to the name then they've just played into his hands and strengthened any battles he may have against the next person thus perpetuating what could (at this time "possibly") be a wrongness. If they did change the games name to Edgy then what possible right does he have to register it for them, to lay claim to a trademark he doesn't even own relating to a game that's also absolutely NOTHING to do with him?
It's also disingenuous to suggest that Mobigames *should* have informed Langdell about them registering Edgy. It's not his business and he doesn't need to be informed. Do Mobigames need to inform him when they're going the toilet too?
All that without going in to how Mr Langdell would have to prove that there would be confusion in the eyes of the public between his branding and Mobigames actual game. That'd certainly be an interesting one to see played out... oh wait, he's accused them of stealing from a considerably different game on the grounds that it's of the same perspective and you hit a few switches. Bingo, I'm sure you'll agree.
All told, a depressing take that seems to want to ignore any evidence for the sake of a contrarian position. I'm not sure what it was supposed to achieve, but congratulations, if nothing else it's made the ever evolving public statement of Mr Langdell. Something to be proud of, I'm sure.