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

[StGabe]

Yay for the modern media, more interested in stealing attention than presenting accurate or useful information.

As anyone who watches Jon Stewart knows, it's quite possible to present mostly factual information in an extremely misleading way. That's what this article does. By ignoring many pertinent details and providing a very narrow and biased focus only on a few specific details this article carefully crafts an "edgy" story that is, nonetheless, quite misleading.

The article should have stuck to its guns when it claimed that Trademark law is a murky thing. It should have pointed out just how murky Mr. Langdell's claim to his trademark is. While correct that Langdell must enforce his trademark, this point is actually more relevant when discussing how poorly enforced it already is. If no one knows that that Edge exists, let alone what it does, then it is for all purposes not enforceable. And in fact this was basically demonstrated when Langdell lost a suit against Namco. Nonetheless Langdell carries on, relying on the general caution of lawyers and the fact that litigation, with a sound basis or not, can be annoying and costly. Many stories corroborate that this has been his MO for decades across all sorts of business dealing.

The article really comes to a head when it invites us to "google Bobby Bearing" and yet fails to even question whether Langdell actually does own the rights to this game as he claims. Did the author try to obtain a copy of this game to see if it was even still available and thus relevant to a trademark discussion? Of course not. The article fails to mention that this game came out 6 years ago and a now nearly defunct platform and was the last game that Edge had done for a decade or so. Had all of that information been presented, of course, the story would have read a lot differently.

This guy is a fraud. Whether he, by a technicality of a lazy law, has an all but defunct trademark or not is really one of the least interesting points of data for this story. Far more salient is this guy's long history of screwing people over by creating situations where it's cheaper to pay him off than to undo the giant pile of crap he's made. That he claims to be a game developer at all is a joke. It's a complicated fib supported by innuendo and deceit hovering near, but outside, the truth. That he is a board member of the IGDA and that he is taken seriously by The Escapist reflects poorly on both institutions.

So why did The Escapist get pulled in? I can only imagine it's because they wanted to get hits. Well you got a hit out of me. Unfortunately it may be the last one.

 

[Duncanm]

If someone can explain to me that someone who claims a trademark to the word 'Edge' in the context of games without having actually released a game, but instead offered Orbital Space Flights, items of clothing on a cafepress account which have a red 'Edge' logo on them, and 'partnerships' with creators of comicbooks, where the author of said comicbook appears to have no recollection of the partnership occuring (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=22513) then I'm all ears.

The games that are cycling around on the flash animation on the edgegames.com site seem to have been in perpetual development, with the assets for at one, Racers, turning out to be from a virtually unknown game, Voltage, which was released by another publisher a few years ago. It may well be the case that the rights for the game have been bought, but this is not entirely clear anywhere.


So, in summary, if retention of the trademark depends on the mark being used in the context of GAMES, where are the games? Bear in mind that he didn't win the Souledge case - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-challenge-decision-results/t-challenge-decision-results-bl?BL_Number=O/337/02 and that was 8 years ago!

 

[Bigpants]

According to www.edgegames.com, the (presumably) first correspondence (March 09) Fedexed from Edge to MobiGames had the following paragraph:

"Failure to respond stating clearly that you will cease use of our famous registered trademark, and making us a proposal to recompense us for the damage you have caused by any use to-date, will likely mean we will take immediate action in the Federal Courts in the US, High Courts in the UK, as well as the European courts, with action against you to the full extent of the law. Certainly, in the US and the UK at least, the minimum claim we would have, should you ignore our warning, is three times the total revenue you have received from the game to-date"

*** Even if MobiGames changed the name from Edge they still had to "recompense" Edge games. ***
Given the "minimum" threat of "three times the total revenue" if MobiGames didn't respond, it was safe for Mobigames to think that "recompense" wasn't going to be cheap. i.e. It would probably put MobiGames out of business.
From Day 1, changing the name without penalty was >never< an option.
Edge Games left MobiGames no option but to fight.

It wasn't until April 22nd that Edge Games gave MobiGames an option to change the name without penalty.
Even then it would be hard to trust, considering 7 hours earlier
Edge Games confirmed "recompense" details (25% of all revenues or 10% + Bobby Bearing homage).
Source: www.edgegames.com



- - -

From the Escapist Article:
"Due to the intricacies of trademark law, trademark holders - in this case, Langdell and Edge Games - are obligated to actively defend their trademarks or risk losing them to other parties."

Does actively defending mean demanding "recompense" even if the name is changed?
I'd like to know. I would think for most people changing the name would be enough.

From Edge Games (paragraph above cited March 9, 2009 FedEx):
"We have never demanded money from anyone in return for our not suing them, that is a complete falsehood. We have pointed out the damages a trademark owner might justifiably claim if the infringement does not cease (which is usual business practice and not "trademark trolling") and in some cases we have made proposals for license agreements that might involve our receiving a license fee payment but never as part of the bullying tactics we are accused of, only as part of amicable settlement discussions."

*** If the "March 9, 2009" FedEx is not a bullying tactic, what is it? ***
There was certainly no discussion (amicable or otherwise).

 

[CraigGrannell]

The fundamental problem with the article, as others have said, is what it leaves out and the manner in which it's written. It says Langdell made first contact and demanded money; it neglects to mention how that was done (in a very hostile manner, as shown by the previous poster) and then says that was retracted (which, apparently, means THAT'S ALL RIGHT THEN!). This is just reckless and irresponsible. Had this been an individual blogger, fine, but when this site claims three 'editors' pored over the content, it's absolutely inexcusable.

With the Edgy thing, the 'facts' presented here are akin to Chinese Whispers, and omitting the things I and others mentioned earlier in this thread spin that episode VERY differently. Escapist is essentially saying Langdell had a great idea of enabling Mobigame to change their game to Edgy, and the iPod dev were idiots for not taking up that lovely and polite offer. But once you take into account the fact Langdell?in emails Escapist MUST have seen?initially said he'd sue if Edgy was used, then said an "entirely different" mark must be used, then started proceedings for registering the mark himself, then said he'd licence it back to Mobigame in return for a strapline, EVEN ON LOCALISED PRODUCT WHERE EDGE HAS NO MARK RIGHTS... well, it paints everything slightly different light, no? And that's just the Edgy thing - this spat has had similar things happen elsewhere from the very start.

What this says to me is that there isn't much effort to drag out the truth here. This seems to be a borderline trolling article, taking a contrary viewpoint to get hits. I'm certainly not against the idea of balance, in coming at this from a neutral viewpoint and going forwards, but this doesn't read like that at all. Perhaps it's a problem of the edit, but it reads like an apology. By taking the case in isolation, taking Langdell's open letter at word (rather than investigating the huge amount of information on the likes of TIG Source) and ignoring key facts in the "literal mountain" of documents that Escapist had access to (and, man, I feel for you guys, having a LITERAL mountain to get through), this is nothing more than a puff piece.

C-
"Must try harder"

Still, Escapist will likely get another shot at this soon - you only have to do a search for Edge in the games section of the App Store to see why...

 

[asprinKing]

In any event, the email was provided to us by Mobigames. David Papazian has authorized us to send it to any journalists we'd like, so I can provide it to you if you don't believe me. Email me if you'd like to see it.

Note that this correspondence is dated 16 April, is by and between Mobigames and their attorney, and that this correspondence was provided to us *by Mobigames.* In fact, we have written permission from Mobigames to share all of this correspondence, so feel free to let me know if you want to see it first-hand. There are 29 different emails, most of which corroborate most of Edge Games' account, and some of which provide quite interesting insights into what Mobigames knew and what it was advised to do.

contradiction... it seems that Langdell is not the only LIAR here.
shame on you The Escapist for this piece of crap

Wait, what? Journalists aren't people? You can't share with journalists? Sharing is not the same as sending?

sending IS NOT publishing

 

[Brett Alex]

sending IS NOT publishing

Really? Its called semantics. I think you're reading a little too much into it. No need to get angry over mildly different phrasing.

 

[RevStu]

It's not called semantics. Sending something to someone and publishing it are quite astonishingly different things.

 

[chongololo]

Crikey, this embarrassing piece of 'journalism' not been taken down yet? For shame.

 

[jimblackler]

Timmy's linked to it from his site to boost credibility.

Congratulations on becoming this scumbag's shill.

 

[RevStu]

You must all be so proud today.

 

[pantsoffdanceoff]

Actually, turns out there IS no obligation to sue Mobigames. Do you see an attorney from Microsoft going to every window repair company with name "Windows" in it and suing them? No, because that would be fucking stupid. A copyright is meant to protect the IDEA, the word is only meant to represent the idea.

 

[RevStu]

Confusing copyrights and trademarks doesn't really help matters, dude...

 

[veloper]

Actually, turns out there IS no obligation to sue Mobigames. Do you see an attorney from Microsoft going to every window repair company with name "Windows" in it and suing them? No, because that would be fucking stupid. A copyright is meant to protect the IDEA, the word is only meant to represent the idea.

M$ wouldn't sue window repair because it's a different trade altogher. Selling the same kind of product is a crucial factor here.

They would however sue you till you lose both your kidneys and send rapists over to your home, if you ever sold a piece of SOFTWARE called Microsoft or Windows or Vista, etc.

 

[Derek Yu]

Confusing copyrights and trademarks doesn't really help matters, dude...

That's true, and unfortunately The Escapist is confusing them, too:

The truth is that bad behavior on both sides has turned what should have been a relatively straightforward copyright dispute into a nasty and very personal mess; unfortunately, the game media was just a little too enthusiastic in getting that ball rolling.

Ugh.

 

[CD-R]

Timmy's linked to it from his site to boost credibility.

Congratulations on becoming this scumbag's shill.

Did he really? Goddammit. THIS ARTICLE IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD.

 

[Brett Alex]

It's not called semantics. Sending something to someone and publishing it are quite astonishingly different things.

In terms of say, a nation's constitution they are astonishingly different. In terms of a UN declaration they are astonishingly different. In terms of an offhand forum post, not so. You're getting your knickers in a twist over something so small as word that could be interpreted many ways?

And really, if the Escapist did not have legal permission from Mobigames to 'publish' (or 'send') the email, do you think they would risk litigation and entangling themselves in already highly tangled legal mess by doing so? Wouldn't you think if Mobigames hadn't given them permission to publish, someone representing them would have asked the Escapist to take it down?

 

[CraigGrannell]

"Wouldn't you think if Mobigames hadn't given them permission to publish, someone representing them would have asked the Escapist to take it down?"

Maybe they did.

Still, good to see that the initial stream of "The Escapist said it, so it MUST be true" has died down, replaced with a lot more of "They said WHAT?" and people even refusing to come back here, even for Zero Punctuation.

The fact the editors here refuse to make any amendments to the article, despite getting basic fundamental facts utterly wrong and knowing full well the article's stance is damaging to an indie dev is reprehensible. At one time, people used to compare Escapist with Edge; now, they'll just twin it with an entirely different?and not so admirable?Edge.

 

[jimblackler]

From Timmy's forum

"Further, from what we know, and from the quote above from the programmers in early 1986, coding of Bobby Bearing was started in 1983 (they talked about the game being 18 months into development a year ago, which puts development start back in '83). Thus while Bobby was not published before Marble Madness, coding of it was well advanced before Marble Madness was released."

Hey I hear the folks at Mobigame started working on their Edge game in 1979. That means they're in the clear!

Wow it really is a lot easier to play this game if you just make any old bollocks up!

Thanks for the pointers Tim Tim!

 

[CraigGrannell]

This isn't the first time Langdell's tried the 'Bobby Bearing is nothing to do with Marble Madness' angle, and I know David Papazian's in touch with the original authors of BB, and so it would be relatively easy to get their take on when the game was started and what they based it on. (Note that Langdell hasn't, however, addressed the issue of BB ownership, which most of his mark's trading status depends on.)

The most interesting thing here, though, is 'EDGE Admin' supposedly quoting from the original BB devs, stating Q*bert and Knight Lore were the inspiration for their game, not Marble Madness, and Langdell (sorry, 'Edge Admin') then saying: "Hopefully this puts to rest any rumors that Bobby was based on either Marble Madness or Spin Dizzy. It wasn't. In fact, Bobby and Spin Dizzy came out in the same year and were being developed in parallel."

OK, I'll go with that. Thing is, that destroys Langdell's argument regarding Edge. He states "In Bobby the core objectives are very similar to the Mobigame game," clearly showing that he's not played either game all that much, or is utterly deluded. Marble Madness is a time-attack racer using axonometric projection. Bobby Bearing is an arcade adventure with a ball, set with the same viewpoint as MM. Edge is a time-attack racer in true isometric projection. Mobigame's Edge, fundamentally, is similar to Marble Madness in cuboid form (although the controls are very different, and the gameplay is hugely affected by the fact it uses cubes rather than a ball on sloped landscapes), with the addition of switches. It is NOT free-roaming, and so Langdell has, at present, destroyed his own argument, although I'm sure he'll either see it differently or delete/edit his post accordingly. Also, the viewpoints are NOT the same, since Edge is the only game to use true isometric projection.

Ultimately, Edge is no more a rip-off of Bobby Bearing than Gran Turismo 4 is a rip-off of OutRun.

 

[Brett Alex]

"Wouldn't you think if Mobigames hadn't given them permission to publish, someone representing them would have asked the Escapist to take it down?"

Maybe they did.

Still, good to see that the initial stream of "The Escapist said it, so it MUST be true" has died down, replaced with a lot more of "They said WHAT?" and people even refusing to come back here, even for Zero Punctuation.

The fact the editors here refuse to make any amendments to the article, despite getting basic fundamental facts utterly wrong and knowing full well the article's stance is damaging to an indie dev is reprehensible. At one time, people used to compare Escapist with Edge; now, they'll just twin it with an entirely different?and not so admirable?Edge.

...All right? Have fun with that one.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say: The Escapist have some vendetta against Mobigames and are breaching an agreement with them by publishing an email they were told not to publish, because they're just pure evil? Because they hate everything Mobigames stands for? Because they want to crush indie developers?

And this then means people have stopped taking the Escapist seriously and no longer like Zero Punctuation, ergo the Escapist is as bad as Edge?

Am I off the mark? How far?


And does it really matter? Whether what the Escapist has reported is or isn't wrong, its not going to effect the eventual outcome of the ensuing legal battle, is it? I don't see how it offends you on such a personal level. We'll see what all unfolds as it unfolds, and we'll see who was wrong or right then. You getting inexplicably angry and ranting and raving won't affect it either, so feel free to make your point about how terrible the Escapist is, but really, chill out man.