Edge or Edgy: The Clash of Two Game Makers - Update

[RobF]

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.

Just to clear this up as it's been mentioned a few times. Renaming to Edgy still continued to come with "an ass riding" as Tim's offer meant that -he- would hold the trademark to Edgy. Regardless of whether there'd be any money changing hands, he'd *still* have a hand in a product he had no business with beyond a trademark dispute.

If someone can explain to me how that's even remotely a good offer, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Syntax Error]

Lemme just pitch my two cents:

Many other common names are trademarked - Apple, Blackberry, Blizzard, Electronic Arts, Take 2, etc etc.

For the record, I didn't even know a game company named "Edge" existed until this whole debacle started. Comparing his company to these giants is just plain wrong. If only I could play Diablo 2 online, I'll send him a screenshot of my character named "Edgeworth", wielding "Edgeworth's Edge Edgebow" (this item could actually exist).

 

[alexwhiteside]

This article makes vague references to the "research" performed in creating it, but I can't find a single statement there that wasn't already included in Edge Games' "Open Letter" page, and the editorial reflects that page's views also. Are we to believe any original research went into the writing of this article, or is it just a recapitulation of the author's acceptance of the Open Letter's content? Bear in mind, this is an Open Letter which Mobigame's lawyers have stated contains several total fabrications.

 

[Lothar Hex]

No offence to the writer, but the only research you've seem to have done is read Langdell's open letter, which is full of misinformation. People on this forum have already pointed out other bits of research that are easily available so I dunno how you managed to miss some of this.

 

[Robert Yang]

... This article is wrong. This is just really really wrong. There are basic facts wrong here that others have already pointed out, and... ugh.

Say, hypothetically, numerous banks purchased toxic assets and caused a worldwide collapse of the financial system as we know it... and then they proceeded to pay themselves bonuses with taxpayer bailout money. It's "legal," of course, but that simply makes it even more heinously unethical. Yes, Langdell has a "case" - and that's the source of the outrage, that he has manipulated and distorted the intent of trademark law to the point that his clearly unethical actions have some semblance of legality.

I seriously hope there's a revision of this article forthcoming.

 

[the1ultimate]

If he has to defend his legal trademark then surely he has to take action against "Mirror's Edge" as well?

Yeah I don't think you should be able to trademark common words. A collection of words maybe.

Copyright law is way to complicated.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I read this, and I read the points that are pro-Langdell, but I still say he is being an idiot. Yes he may own the rights to "Edge games" or "The Edge" or whatever his copyright covers exactly, and yes he can draw comparisons between Apple and Blizzard who also have normal words copyrighted. But he misses the point that Blizzard don't sue every weatherman who mentions that particular meteorological phenomenon. This person has called their game Edge. Nothing alludes to Edge games. But he sues them anyway. It's just a pointless piece of corporate bullishness

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.

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.

In that case I point out, as many others have, that Langdell didn't sue Mirror's Edge. They were using his term, right there in the title

 

[Capo Taco]

Langdell awful lawful
Edge of insanity
Mirrors Mirrors
Smoke and Mirrors
(a game by EDGE)

Mobigames just give in
Mobigames you can't win
You make winner games
He makes winner lawsuits

 

[jimblackler]

This article is entitled "The Clash of Two Game Makers", but Langdell is not a game maker. He has no products in development and has produced nothing in the last five years. With the possible exception of Bobby Bearing (in any case developed and published by others), EDGE Games has no products since 1994 that can be purchased. Every single product pushed on his website has turned out to be imaginary. His claimed connections (Teenage Wasteland, Mythoria, Edge Comics) all turn out to be bogus on investigation. There is also very worrying evidence about Tim's court submissions in support of the US registered trademark Edge.

Check the thread at http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?threadid=35923&pagenumber=50.

Tim doesn't have a trademark to the word Edge because to have a trademark you have to trade, and he isn't doing that. He just has a shill website with fake products, and you seem to have fallen for it.

 

[roskelld]

Langdell awful lawful
Edge of insanity
Mirrors Mirrors
Smoke and Mirrors
(a game by EDGE)

Mobigames just give in
Mobigames you can't win
You make winner games
He makes winner lawsuits

He's got a terrible record in court. Read some of the transcripts. Pretty damn hilarious reading.

EDGE GAMES vs NAMCO (SOULEDGE)

Edge Games claim to have released a game called Souledge in 1988, which stayed on sale till around 1992.

NO ONE has ever heard of this game, this game he claimed as evidence in A COURT OF LAW as part of his case against Namco. In fact so few people have heard of this game that even Edge Games forgot to add it to their list of releases on their website.

The result of that case was that the courts fined Edge Games £1000 which they had to pay to Namco.

That there's a winning formula for a company that has the right to fight for their trademark. What trademark?

 

[roskelld]

If he has to defend his legal trademark then surely he has to take action against "Mirror's Edge" as well?

Yeah I don't think you should be able to trademark common words. A collection of words maybe.

Copyright law is way to complicated.

Don't get copyright and trademark mixed up, they're very different beasts.


Also a trademark isn't just a word, it's a mark, often part word, part look. This is partly the way that some words can be used in many places, because the consumer sees the logo and the look of the mark as much as they see the actual word.

Zero confusion there from the consumer.

p.s. Also as stated, you have to be trading or about to trade in order to hold a trademark. Can someone show where Edge Games have been trading?

 

[whaleswiththumbs]

Interesting to hear another side of the story, certainly after Tim Langdell even got a lot of serious hate from the Escapist community.

He really deserves it, the word "Edge" is so common I could probably go to any game store and find maybe 20 titles with Edge in it, I don't see Langdell going after them. Maybe he just hates the french, and the indie. Prick..

 

[Synnah]

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?

While I agree with what you said, Jinxey, I feel like I should point out that Tim did actually oppose EA's registration of the 'Mirror's Edge' trademark. Shortly after it was filed in 2007, a letter from Edge Games arrived at the US Trademark Office, stating that they were 'horrified' that they would grant EA a trademark that so clearly infringes on the 'world famous' Edge name. Some time later, someone at the Trademark office said something along the lines of 'Oops. You're right. Trademark suspended', and EA sent in a massive response, citing several documents that highlighted the lack of similarity between the two trademarks, and how there wouldn't be any actual confusion. To this date, this has been ignored, and the trademark for Mirror's Edge remains suspended, so it actually belongs to no-one. Langdell has, as a result, tried to 'settle amicably' with EA over the issue (In the process attempting to cause brand confusion on his website by announcing 'MIRRORS a game from EDGE'), but it seems like they're not taking his threats seriously.

With regards to Andy's article, I don't know if anyone has pointed out the factual inaccuracies, but I figured I'd bring them up:

This much, however, is clear: A few months after the game was launched, Langdell attempted to contact Mobigame to inform the company of its infringement. When those efforts went unanswered, he contacted Apple instead, presenting it with proof of Edge Games' trademarks. Apple's decision to sidestep any potential legal entanglements by pulling the game from the iTunes App Store finally got Mobigame's attention and that's where the fun begins.

Not true, and this much is even stated in Langdell's Public Statement, from which most of the information in the article seems to have been gleaned. Mobigame didn't respond for quite some time, true (According to Papazian, they wanted to figure out where they stood on the issue before making a move, because Tim's initial letters were quite aggressive and threatening, as you can read in his Public Statement), but it wasn't Apple's decision to remove the game from the App store the first time; that was entirely Mobigame's decision. Apple did pull it at a later date, but the 'fun' had already long begun by this point.

 

[RevStu]

This is an absolutely shocking piece of journalism. There is NO evidence whatsoever that Langdell has a prima facie case, so the writer's main statements in Langdell's defence are in the first instance factually wrong (as are several other facts, already noted by others). There's also no mention of the fact that Langdell wanted the "Edgy" name attached to the suffix "An Homage To Bobby Bearing", a scandalous and wildly unfounded demand that Papazian was entirely right to reject.

Langdell's trademark, if it can still be said to legally exist given the company's lack of output, refers to the publisher. If Papazian was trying to call his COMPANY "Edge Interactive" or something similar, Langdell would be justified in taking action. But nobody is ever going to mistake a game called Edge for the product of a company called Edge, which nobody's ever heard of in the first place because it hasn't developed a game in about 20 years. Electronic Arts doesn't call its games "Electronic Arts 5".

This article is so unbalanced and inaccurate it should probably be removed on the grounds that it amounts to libel against David Papazian.

 

[Dudemeister]

The whole thing just smells. Having legit products around it doesn't make the company any less shady or more right, it just makes it harder to dig out the scheming from the legal entanglement around it.

This is what I was thinking when reading the article, just because he does some legitimate business, does not make his legal claims any less dubious.

 

[D_987]

He's got a terrible record in court. Read some of the transcripts. Pretty damn hilarious reading.

EDGE GAMES vs NAMCO (SOULEDGE)

Edge Games claim to have released a game called Souledge in 1988, which stayed on sale till around 1992.

NO ONE has ever heard of this game, this game he claimed as evidence in A COURT OF LAW as part of his case against Namco. In fact so few people have heard of this game that even Edge Games forgot to add it to their list of releases on their website.

Um...I think that was the original Soul Calibur, and lots of people have heard of it - its just not an "EDGE GAMES" product. That alone shows how pathetic this whole charade is.

 

[alexwhiteside]

You misunderstand, Tim Langdell told the hearing that he'd developed a game called "Souledge" in 1998 and sold it until 1992, and therefore Namco's game couldn't be called "Souledge".

Even Edge Games' bibliography doesn't include any "Souledge" game.

 

[D_987]

You misunderstand, Tim Langdell told the hearing that he'd developed a game called "Souledge" in 1998 and sold it until 1992, and therefore Namco's game couldn't be called "Souledge".

Even Edge Games' bibliography doesn't include any "Souledge" game.

Really, well the only information I could find on the matter was that it had something to do with the name, so I presumed it had something to do with the "EDGE" part of the name. Regardless, their opposition failed miserably, yet Namco had already decided to change the name to SoulBlade.

 

[Deity1986]

There are loads of companies that have trademarked 'edge' in various different areas. I think it's about context and the way you write it (eg: if a game came out with the word blizzard in it and it looked like the blue Blizzard Entertainment logo, then Blizzard could complain, written otherwise i think it'd be fine).

I think Mobigames should quickly trademark 'edgy' now since EDGE have abandoned it, just in case. And it'd be funny:

Word Mark EDGY
Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer game software
Filing Date May 16, 2009
Owner (APPLICANT) Edge Games Inc CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 530 South Lake Avenue, Ste 171 Pasadena CALIFORNIA 91101
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Abandonment Date August 3, 2009

(NB: removed unnecessary lines like serial number and filing basis)

 

[RevStu]

One of the particularly interesting things on the Edge Games website is its claim to be developing a PS3 game called Racers.

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

Now take a look at the screenshots of the as-yet-unreleased PS3 game "Voltage" being produced by Lexicon Entertainment:

http://www.gamershell.com/ps3/voltage/screenshots.html

Wow! Langdell should totally sue!