I first reported on this spat a couple of months back on Cult of Mac and am astonished by this article. There's little point repeating what's already been said, but RobF and RevStu's comments on the previous page sum most things up.
There is some misunderstanding regarding EDGY, however, that people don't seem to have gotten straight. According to the communications I've seen, the Edgy idea happened during a telephone conversation (the only one) between Langdell and Papazian. There is no written record of who made this suggestion, but from subsequent emails between the two, it's likely it was Papazian.
On May 14, Papazian suggested an immediate rebrand in the US and UK (game name, logo), but this was then rebuffed by Langdell. He stated that he would "very strongly oppose" the use of Edgy, arguing that it was just adding a 'y' sound the end of what he called "our famous trademark EDGE". He then goes on to note that Edge won a case against someone who tried to use Edgy and "so we are confident we would win should you try to do that". This, apparently, is a "very polite settlement offer", despite, you know, not being polite... nor a settlement offer.
During the same email, Langdell states Mobigame should select an "entirely different name", despite the fact that under IP law he had no real legal basis for doing so. Clearly, he's throughout trying to cling to 'passing off': Langdell's argument largely hinges on the fact Mobigame specifically called its game Edge to somehow remind people of the game Bobby Bearing, which has a somewhat similar - but NOT identical - viewpoint, published (but not created) by Edge. (Note how few people have reported on the fact that Bobby Bearing's creators still claim they have the rights to the game.)
Subsequently, Langell applied for the EDGY mark HIMSELF and said he'd licence it back to Mobigame, in return for a byline on the game. This offer ALSO required that territories where Edge Games doesn't have the Edge mark would have a similar byline, which is absurd in the extreme. Do people here really think Mobigame should have accepted such terms, branding their game 'Edgy - an homage to Bobby Bearing by Edge Games' or something similar?
Papazian, unsurprisingly, questioned this, and Langdell almost immediately responded with "we will thus take your reply as a rejection of our offer".
As I've said elsewhere, this is not a black-and-white case. But this website's stance is shocking, and the journalism shoddy in the extreme. By taking this case in isolation, misrepresenting the facts, and, in more than one case, flat out lying, the result is a story that is borderline libellous. I'll bet Langdell's been doing a happy dance since he first read it.
Oh, and mk-1601 and other, don't bother emailing The Escapist, because they're just firing out the exact same "We certainly appreciate your feedback" (but can't be arsed to respond to your specific points) email to everyone.
There is some misunderstanding regarding EDGY, however, that people don't seem to have gotten straight. According to the communications I've seen, the Edgy idea happened during a telephone conversation (the only one) between Langdell and Papazian. There is no written record of who made this suggestion, but from subsequent emails between the two, it's likely it was Papazian.
On May 14, Papazian suggested an immediate rebrand in the US and UK (game name, logo), but this was then rebuffed by Langdell. He stated that he would "very strongly oppose" the use of Edgy, arguing that it was just adding a 'y' sound the end of what he called "our famous trademark EDGE". He then goes on to note that Edge won a case against someone who tried to use Edgy and "so we are confident we would win should you try to do that". This, apparently, is a "very polite settlement offer", despite, you know, not being polite... nor a settlement offer.
During the same email, Langdell states Mobigame should select an "entirely different name", despite the fact that under IP law he had no real legal basis for doing so. Clearly, he's throughout trying to cling to 'passing off': Langdell's argument largely hinges on the fact Mobigame specifically called its game Edge to somehow remind people of the game Bobby Bearing, which has a somewhat similar - but NOT identical - viewpoint, published (but not created) by Edge. (Note how few people have reported on the fact that Bobby Bearing's creators still claim they have the rights to the game.)
Subsequently, Langell applied for the EDGY mark HIMSELF and said he'd licence it back to Mobigame, in return for a byline on the game. This offer ALSO required that territories where Edge Games doesn't have the Edge mark would have a similar byline, which is absurd in the extreme. Do people here really think Mobigame should have accepted such terms, branding their game 'Edgy - an homage to Bobby Bearing by Edge Games' or something similar?
Papazian, unsurprisingly, questioned this, and Langdell almost immediately responded with "we will thus take your reply as a rejection of our offer".
As I've said elsewhere, this is not a black-and-white case. But this website's stance is shocking, and the journalism shoddy in the extreme. By taking this case in isolation, misrepresenting the facts, and, in more than one case, flat out lying, the result is a story that is borderline libellous. I'll bet Langdell's been doing a happy dance since he first read it.
Oh, and mk-1601 and other, don't bother emailing The Escapist, because they're just firing out the exact same "We certainly appreciate your feedback" (but can't be arsed to respond to your specific points) email to everyone.
