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

[ASnogarD]

I done what the article invited me to do ... Google Bobby Bearing

The first 4 hits refer to retro sites and old news about Your Sinclair and a review in there, then there is a GameFaq entry... with no data except a very flattering description.

I quote:
State of the art 3D action puzzle game featuring the realistic game play of a real rolling ball. You play Bobby who must hunt through a maze of traps and puzzles to find his lost brothers and bring them home. Beware the evil black ball bearings as you roll around this fabulous virtual 3D world. A game that can be played for a few moments, or remain a challenge for weeks or months. Suitable for all player experience levels.

But no other data , no messages on the board, no FAQ's ...nothing

Few hits down the Google page , and there was a review...played on a Nokia 6610. Developed by Omnigence , which is a confusing mess of micro developers from Poland and Russia (as far as I could tell).

... then more retro links.

Hardly a convincing argument of the great and famous Edge trademark that is a prominent developer.

I would of agreed that Langdell is allowed to defend his mark, but while we only have his and Mobigames word on what transpired in those e-mail conversations ... we can see a lot of questionable actions by Edge Games, games that they claim but the original IP owners of that game for some reason seem to refute that claim. Claims to Films...where the IP holder is frantically telling everyone that Edge has no claim whatsoever...and of course the famous, MIRRORS a game by EDGE.
These acts of apparent and alleged duplicity makes one wonder about the authenticity of any of Edge Games statements... after all it seem they have a alleged precedence for obscuring facts.

Somthing else that doesnt make sense... I cant see how the events could of occured as depicted by Edge Games, it makes no sense logically that a small developer like Mobigames would act so beligerent when told it was infringing on a IP (which it was, like it or not), and further still refusing a reasonable offer to rename the game with no penalties.
Mobigames would have more to gain by renaming the game at that stage, and reaping the benefits from the successfull game, unless there was a good reason why not to change the name... say a licence penalty, or a legal loophole where they (Mobigames) may lose the right to the game, or forced to allow others to claim involvement to the game development.
To me it Edge Games version sounds like Edge Games was being so nice and friendly and the evil Mobigames was just refusing all reasonable and helpfull attempts by Edge Games to amicably resolve the issue.

 

[Deity1986]

Word Mark EDGE OF EXTINCTION
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer game software. FIRST USE: 20000310. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20000310
Filing Date March 3, 2000
Published for Opposition March 19, 2002
Registration Date June 17, 2003
Owner (REGISTRANT) Cybernet Systems Corporation CORPORATION DELAWARE 727 Airport Blvd. Ann Arbor MICHIGAN 48108
Attorney of Record John G. Posa
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

I looked up Edge of Extinction and got this. Not sure if EDGE or Tim Langdell has anything to do with it so those rumours might just be an internet ruse.

(NB: these are from the US trademarks office since they were the first one i came across with a search engine )

 

[RevStu]

With regard to Mythora 2, the other title Edge Games claims to be developing:

http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=550061628305c61393ebe8d3154d9508&postid=229819&highlight=From+XXXXXX#post229819

I have been given permission to publish this comment from Marcin Michael, former head of NARWA the developers of Mythora, which Tim claims he published.... (at a time when his company was suspended)

quote:
From: XXXXXX

To: XXXXXX

Subject: Re: Tim Langdell
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:34:25 -0400

I've been able to investigate the case.

Tim was dealing with a group of freelancers from Poland long time ago, when Mythora was in initial development stage.
We (as NAWAR Corp. that time) have took control over this project and hired those freelancers.
The IP has been acquired by NAWAR and some of those original creators still work for us.


What they say is that there was no agreement between freelancers and Tim, and they were shopping around many different publishers to secure the development and publishing deal. Tim was never involved in production of Mythora. However, since we are not in touch with all the initial creators I cannot firmly confirm either there was any formal relation between Tim and some freelancer or not.


We have producer and released Mythora (also known as The Banished) in a few countries. The IP rights to Mythora have been assigned to FRONTLINE Studios in 2005, as FRONTLINE took control over all NAWAR's entertainment projects and IP's.


Either NAWAR or FRONTLINE wasn't in any agreement nor dealings with Tim or EDGE.


Please let me know if you need any more information. We are happy to help to resolve this case.


Best regards,


-Marcin



so,like Teenage Wastland Tim is claiming credit for a product he does not actually own and has no rights to pubish. The IP belongs to Frontline and they granted licenses to 2 companies to sell in Russia and France...neither companies were Edge.

 

[Deity1986]

Tim also claims he 'spawned' Edge magazine. Apparently Future publishings legal department are looking into this but are refusing to comment at the moment

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

The reason game journos always s*** the bed when they write about video game lawsuits is because there is by definition two sides to the story. Having underdogs and championing causes makes for good reading, but this isn't a comic book. You don't want wake up, have some coffee, and get slapped with a huge trademark lawsuit. They're required to warn you that it's coming. Any company that bothers to Google a few terms should spot a game company quickly. If you have a problem with the trademark system, go ***** at the Feds.

The point being, in this brand of litigation, they're always both being dicks.

 

[Duncanm]

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.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-challenge-decision-results/o33702.pdf

Page 3 -

"He also claims to have used the specific trade mark
?SOULEDGE? in the United Kingdom and in that connection provides details of sales of a
game called Souledge which was launched in 1988 and which, he says, remains in the
companies active catalogue of products for sale. The evidence of use of that game is dated
Spring 1988, December 1990 and there are some invoices, dated January 7 1992 and August
28 1991."

 

[Ray Huling]

The reason game journos always s*** the bed when they write about video game lawsuits is because there is by definition two sides to the story.

But between the two sides there can be a right and a wrong one. It's not comic book dualism every time someone wins a lawsuit, is it?

Refusing to acknowledge a clear disparity between two sides can itself be an expression of journalistic cowardice--or sheer, willful contrarianism.

in this brand of litigation, they're always both being dicks.

Is that a judgment or a refusal to make one? Dismiss all disputes, then?

Ginning up some evidence that all parties are in some way to blame is always a move meant to give advantage to the aggressor.

 

[roskelld]

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.

Namco changed the name because they knew how long a court battle could take to play out. Another of Edge Games' fine tactics, apply for extensions and delay court hearings so that the defendants product remains off the shelf and earning no money.

This is why so many people give in at the early stages, they can't afford a long drawn out court battle, not just because of the court costs, (Edge Games don't want it to go that far) but because of the lost revenue of not having a title on the shelves for that time.

Namco decided to play ball on both fronts, they changed the name to allow them to release the game without problem, but they also continued with the court case in order to bring justice to the situation.

Look at the date of the final court hearing: 2002. When was Souledge (Soulblade) launched? '98
See, that's how long they'd have probably been forced off the shelf if they didn't go ahead with the name change; and that's how long court cases can be drawn out for.

It really plays into the hands of the 'so called' trademark owner.

 

[Duncanm]

And reading that thing, it's like deja fucking vu. That apparently, there were 'many people' contacting Langdell who were confusing Edge and Souledge. This is the same reasoning that is being given for the current 'Edge' issue.

Thinking about it for about 3 seconds, though, it doesn't even make any sense. Are there any companies that consistently release games that have the name of the publisher in them? Apart from Narcissism Games, of course.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

The reason game journos always s*** the bed when they write about video game lawsuits is because there is by definition two sides to the story.

But between the two sides there can be a right and a wrong one. It's not comic book dualism every time someone wins a lawsuit, is it?

Refusing to acknowledge a clear disparity between two sides can itself be an expression of journalistic cowardice--or sheer, willful contrarianism.

A right one and a wrong one to who? When two people are in a lawsuit, they both think they're right. That's the problem with trying to apply morality to a legal issue. Both sides are explaining how they are right. All someone is applying is their own view of the situation, which typically just means picking a side.

in this brand of litigation, they're always both being dicks.

Is that a judgment or a refusal to make one? Dismiss all disputes, then?

Ginning up some evidence that all parties are in some way to blame is always a move meant to give advantage to the aggressor.

That's a refusal to buy the victim bulls*** Mobigames is spinning. Langdell may be a trademark troll, but I'm not going to listen to someone cry foul when they had due warning in a legal issue that their lawyers knew full well how to operate.

 

[Eagle Est1986]

The fact of the matter remains, he's trademarked a common English word with seemingly no intention to use it himself. It'd be like me trademarking the word 'war', then politely telling Ubisoft, Epic Games, Microsoft, Activision and pretty much every else that they're using my word and that they can either pay me for it or use a different word.
Gears of Wor anyone?

 

[Duncanm]

That's a refusal to buy the victim bulls*** Mobigames is spinning. Langdell may be a trademark troll, but I'm not going to listen to someone cry foul when they had due warning in a legal issue that their lawyers knew full well how to operate.

Whilst I fully understand that this may be the first time that you've heard of this case, for some of us it's been an ongoing e-drama for a while now. There's plenty to discover about Langdell without any of this 'spin' that Mobigame are alleged to have been part of by this pisspoor article.

 

[Monshroud]

I don't have a problem with Tim Langdell's trademark of the word 'Edge'. If they were releasing new games every few years, this probably wouldn't be an issue. My problem is that he seems to be doing the bare minimum to keep his trademark active. Re-releasing a game from 20 years ago (or whatever it was) and just porting it doesn't show any real what most sane-people would call 'new' content or development. My problem is the fact that he didn't sue EA for Mirror's Edge, which is a video game that is using his Trademark. I would really like to hear him comment on that. Also as pointed out, his website magically has a little blurb saying that Edge Games is releasing a game called Mirror's, with no release date or other info. Either protect your trademark, or give it up. Maybe the fact is because Edge Games didn't go after EA that this is such a large issue? Maybe the lawyers said "It's too late to do anything about EA, but the next time this comes up we have to jump on it."

Now from what I could find, Edge Games hasn't sued Ford, the shaving gel, or other compaines that use the word Edge, because they are not in that Market, and it would be hard to prove that the Ford Edge is somehow causing consumer confusion with Edge Games. Just like Microsoft can't sue 'Champion Windows' for use of the word Windows.

To all those people who keep blabbing about trademarking some word. Unless you are going to start picking on: Windows, Palm, Blackberry, Blizzard, Apple, Adobe, and countless others stoping saying how terrible it is to Trademark a common word.

 

[Monshroud]

The fact of the matter remains, he's trademarked a common English word with seemingly no intention to use it himself. It'd be like me trademarking the word 'war', then politely telling Ubisoft, Epic Games, Microsoft, Activision and pretty much every else that they're using my word and that they can either pay me for it or use a different word.
Gears of Wor anyone?

There is a flaw in this, and that is precedent. When Tim Langdell trademarked "Edge" and "Edge Games" back in the late 70's or early 80's, there was not a mass amount of work using that word in the context of gaming. Also, at the time, Edge Games did release games. Nothing at all recently as I stated in my above post, but he did use it for its intended purpose. Now if you tried to trademark the word "War" for gaming, you would be turned down because there is an ample amount of material already in the market using that word. When Tim did it with Edge, there was not. That is the sad difference. I don't like it or agree with it, it just happens to be the law in this case.

 

[Keith Andrew]

This is a bizarre take on events, especially for The Escapist. I think those involved need to dig a little deeper into this story - there's nothing wrong with trying to give a balanced account, but simply take Edge Game's 'open letter' at its word is both daft, and also irresponsible.

It's not like there isn't enough here for a writer to get his or her teeth into.

 

[Swaki]

thats weird, i read in experience points that mobigames offered to change the name to edgy, not that EDGEtm came whit that suggestion and told them that they would only have to call it that in the U.S..

but then again i have learned that the writer of experience points have used made up statistics and presented them as facts, so im beginning to read his articles whit enormous amounts of salt.

 

[Another]

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.

I don't recall reading anywhere that them taking the name Edgy would put Tim's stamp on it.

I just said they should have taken it "in my opinion". After all he rescinded his request for payment for infringement, and as a small developer i would assume that Mobigames needs to keep their game in the marketplace to keep them from dying.

Do i think the offer is "right"? No, hell no. I have no respect for Tim or his company. I do not think this man is fit to be on the board of the IGDA.

Unfortunately within the definition of copyright law this guy has a case. Which means if Mobigame gives in its screwed, if it doesn't its just screwed harder. Because ,as much as I'd like it to be, this man being a douche is not a good legal defense.

You said in a earlier post that Mobigames giving in would make Tim's next case stronger. Which I guess may be true. But face it, no one wants to be a martyr, especially not a fledgling game developer.

All things said, Mobigames didn't do the right thing either. They should have changed the name the minute their lawyer knew about the infringement in order to avoid this fiasco. What's that saying...the tree that bends to the storm will live on, the tree that holds its ground will break. Or something like that. You really cannot run a company without being flexible.

Final thing, i promise. I don't like either side in this case. Tim and his company are obviously shady, but as i read more and more, so are Mobigame. I don't like either side, and this debacle needs to stop. At this point I've stopped caring about who wins. Kinda cruel to indie studio's i know, but this isn't gonna stop good indie studios from moving forward.

 

[Keith Andrew]

All things said, Mobigames didn't do the right thing either. They should have changed the name the minute their lawyer knew about the infringement in order to avoid this fiasco.

God no. You're entirely missing the point.

Edge Games should have no rights over the word 'Edge' when it comes to games titles. There is absolutely no chance anyone would mistake Edge for an Edge Games game (namely because there aren't any), and the game has no resemblence to Bobby Bearing, which - it's suspected - Edge Games actually doesn't hold the rights to anyway.

It's a farce, and Mobigame is right to fight them on every issue.

 

[mk-1601]

If you would like to see a better standard of journalism from The Escapist, I suggest contacting the relevant editor:

[email protected]

http://twitter.com/SusanArendt

 

[restoshammyman]

im gonna trade mark the word no.
that way when im with a girl, she can other say yes to sex or get her ass sued for saying no.
sounds perfectly logical to me.