Mobigame may keep EDGE name

By Robert Purchese Published 12 August, 2009

iPhone dev has "overwhelming support".

Mobigame claims to have "overwhelming support" in the EDGE versus Tim Langdell/Edge Games argument, and appears to be considering keeping the EDGE name for its acclaimed iPhone game after all.

"Now that the road is clear for 'EDGY' we can look further into the implications of changing the name," writes Mobigame in an open letter on PocketGamer. "However, because of the overwhelming support we have had and the fact that we are increasingly finding that legal position favours our continuing use of the name 'EDGE', we have to consider this carefully.

"We are clearly not the first and won't be the last to experience these troubles and we do not propose walking away from them. If we do re-brand it will not be because Edge Games has any validity in its claims but because its conduct has made it impossible for us to trade meaningfully otherwise."

Mobigame dismisses Langdell's open letter as "another example" of "improper conduct", and one that contains "a number of false statements, manipulations of the truth and fabricated evidence".

Edge Games, on the other hand, claims Mobigame "lied" about being held-up while trying to change the name of iPhone game EDGE to EDGY, so as not infringe trademark any longer.

"Mobigame only said this to make Edge Games look bad," wrote Edge Games, "and to make our CEO personally look bad, too - and to try to falsely blame us for Mobigame's lost revenues so as to deceive the independent game community into taking pity on Mobigame and siding with Mobigame against Edge Games and Dr Lagndell personally."

This statement was updated yesterday to reiterate that the pieces of evidence contained within are "completely genuine" and Edge Games "can prove they are".

"The only alterations are the obvious ones - redaction of the individuals at Edge since Mobigame seems intent on perpetuating defamation against Edge employees as individuals rather than employees - and do not alter meaning," the update states.

Edge Games claims ownership of the Edge name when used for a videogame-related product.

Head to our "The Edge of Reason?" article for a full and illuminating analysis of the story so far.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (56) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Xerx3s #1 3 years ago

    "Mobigame only said this to make Edge Games look bad," wrote Edge Games, "and to make our CEO personally look bad, too - and to try to falsely blame us for Mobigame's lost revenues so as to deceive the independent game community into taking pity on Mobigame and siding with Mobigame against Edge Games and Dr Lagndell personally."

    I don't think that there is anything that mobygames can do to make scum like you look any worse. I hope that they string you up to the highest judicial gallows that they can find.

  • septimus #2 3 years ago

    Xerx3s: +1... well, a lot more really.

  • penhalion #3 3 years ago

    As I tried to say. You can't copyright ot trademark a known word end of story! Tim Langdell has never owned the word Edge in any context and simply threatened people who used it. I'm now seriously doubting he even consulted a trademark lawyer over his rights concerning the use of the word.

    Why do I know this. Well, to cut a long story short. A while back I tried to trademark the name Simple for my games company. I consulted a trademark lawyer who immediately said that I couldn't by law do that. The word is in common use and has existed in a dictionary form for hundreds of years. What I could do was trademark Simple Software or Simple Games etc. etc. The lawyer made it very very clear that I wouldn't have a leg to stand on if anyone used simple in a game title or for any other game related use for that matter. All I would own is the trademark "Simple Games" and only if someone specifically used both Simple and games together and in that order for their own games product!

    This is why I was immediately puzzed about why anyone was even negotiating with Tim Langdell about the word Edge at all. He only owns the name "The Edge" or "The Edge Software". You can happily and legally use any other conbination of Edge and legally just tell him to F$%k off.

    I suspect that it's the threat of being sued that was causing people to comply with him rather than any legal legs, which he simply doesn't have.

  • linksdad #4 3 years ago

    Edge games, they're the guys that write the games magazine, yes? (no!)

  • ChthonicEcho #5 3 years ago

    Tim makes all those parasitic patent trolls look like children in comparison.
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/09 @ 16:10

  • Normski #6 3 years ago

    @penhalion With the greatest respect in the world, then you've got a crappy trademark lawyer. You can trademark plenty of common usage dictionary words, Dr. Tim has done exactly that, perfectly legally. Doesn't mean his conduct has been anything other than that of a triumphant asshat. But the "it's a word" thing simply isn't true.

  • Oh-Bollox #7 3 years ago

    Whatever happens, this has got Mobigames lots and lots of free publicity. They're in the spotlight, and whether they change the name or not, I think Edge will sell well, and any games Mobi make in the future will also receive additional spotlight time.

    Langdell, you fucked up.

  • chubster2010 #8 3 years ago

    Good luck to Mobigames. Tim Langdell is a cnut of the highest order, and EDGE (though I've not played it - don't have an iPhone you see...) looks like a great bit of software and deserving of all the success it can get.

  • penhalion #9 3 years ago

    @Normski

    No you can't mate. You are mistaking a trademarked logo for a trademarked word. The difference is that you can trademark a made up word but, not a word that isn't made up unless it's in a specific context. The lack of understanding is why people were caving in to Tim's demands without actually checking the validity of the claims.

    It's the reason that there exists Tesco's Cola or Asda Cola or Pepsi Cola etc. etc. And why Coca Cola can't do anything about it. The only cola trademarks that Coca Cola own are well "Coca Cola". Though Coke is also considered their trademark, when used for drinks. Edge is not a made up word. It is used in everyday scentences and phrases. Edge Games only owns "Edge Games" they don't own "My Edge" or "The Edge of Forever" etc. etc which are valid game titles that can be used by anyone. If you got a letter from Tim claiming that you couldn't use ""The Edge of Forever" as a title you are totally entitled to ignore him as he simply doesn't own that usage of the word Egde.

    My trademark lawyer is bloody good and I suspect that if Tim Langdell had a similar lawyer he never would have tried to pull this trolling stunt at all. Even MobiGames, who I believe have now comsulted a lawyer are realising that Tim Langdell was talking crap about his ownership of the word Edge, hence they are considering re-instating the title of their game.

  • mingster #10 3 years ago

    Hmm.. he's not happy with Eurogamer.
    The 2nd and 3rd to last paragraph of his open letter say the stuff you printed was a lie.

  • thegamesthething #11 3 years ago

    In Inside Man, (the character played by) Christopher Plummer calls (the character played by) Jodie Foster 'a magnificent cunt'.

    Which would be a good name for the next article about Tim.

  • seasidebaz #12 3 years ago

    Cola is a type of nut, though. It describes what the product contains. EDGE in no way explains what EDGE contains (apparently, nuts as well)

    If Coca-Cola managed to trademark "Cola" as well, supermarkets would describe their own brands as "cola-flavoured soft drink". Which is exactly the same thing, only worse, as in stating this you are saying that your own brand tastes as good as Coca-Cola, which would harm Coca-Cola more in the long run.

  • kendoji #13 3 years ago

    Cock.

  • kangarootoo #14 3 years ago

    "If Coca-Cola managed to trademark "Cola" as well..."

    The IF in that sentence is at the centre of all of this though. They couldn't, unless there was a change in the law.

  • kangarootoo #15 3 years ago

    That open letter makes for paranoid reading.

  • mingster #16 3 years ago

    penhalion... how did Apple trademark the word 'Apple' then?

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #17 3 years ago

    How does the 'not being able to copyright a known word' relate to the whole Apple vs. Apple legal ping-pong?: http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps...

    EDIT: Mingster beat me to it but I'll leave my post for background info
    Edited by 2 at 12/08/09 @ 16:43

  • smelly #18 3 years ago

    I like how in langdells "open letter" he bemoans mobigames for printing parts of private emails.

    .. and then goes on to publish the ENTIRE email chain (which may or may not have made up emails to make him look good in it)

  • seasidebaz #19 3 years ago

    Oh well, I don't care. I'll just release a freeware game called "The Edge", then watch him try and take some of the "lifetime sales" money.

    What's that, Tim? 25% of £0 is what?

  • kangarootoo #20 3 years ago

    @mingster and Pac-man ate my wife

    Context is the reason the ping pong struck up again relatively recently.

    Apple Music tried to sue Apple Computers ages ago, and there was the usual legal posturing. The resolution was that Apple Computers could keep using the name Apple so long as they stayed out of music.... which was fine until they launched iTunes, and then all the posturing started up again. It is relevant here because they both now share use of the name Apple in a music environment (though its still not straight forward).

    Hopefully penhalion is still reading, as he knows more about this than me.

  • KrissAkabusi #21 3 years ago

    @penhalion

    [link url=http://ezinearticles.com/?You-Can -Trademark-a-Lot-More-Than-You-Think&id=453370
    ]http://ez inearticles.com/?You-Can-Tradem...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.brighthub.com/office/entrepreneurs/a rticles/42927.aspx
    ]http://ww w.brighthub.com/office/entrepre...[/link]


  • seasidebaz #22 3 years ago

    It is relevant here because they both now share use of the name Apple in a music environment (though its still not straight forward).

    It actually is pretty straightforward, though. Apple (music people) didn't put a clause in about digital download music, so Apple (computer people) used the loophole...

    edit: Win was a silly word to use :D
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/09 @ 17:06

  • kangarootoo #23 3 years ago

    The title of the article has suspiciously gain a "may" :)

  • smelly #24 3 years ago

    Something else of interest.. In his "open letter" he says (quote): "Our game RACERS (RACERS screenshots ) is about to be launched on PC and PS3, with the other versions following."

    The "RACERS screenshots" links here:

    [link url=http:// www.the--edge.com/edgegames/racers.htm
    ]http://ww w.the--edge.com/edgegames/racer...[/link]


    those screenshots look suspiciously like these "voltage" screenshots.. doncha think?

    [link url=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=18 8616
    ]http://ww w.computerandvideogames.com/art...[/link]

  • seasidebaz #25 3 years ago

    @smelly:

    Yes they do. The game was also previously released through a different publisher and the dev would appear to no longer exist, if what some people on the IGDA forums are saying is true...

    edit: here
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/09 @ 17:02

  • kangarootoo #26 3 years ago

    @seasidebaz

    That doesn't guarantee a win for Apple Computers, all it gurantees is that its NOT an automatic win for Apple Music. I figure the debate will simply go through the courts again.

  • smernicki #27 3 years ago

    Uwe Boll should challenge Tim Langdell to one of his boxing matches. That would be class

  • JimWest #28 3 years ago

    @smelly

    This point you've raised is interesting and quite shocking. If this is true, Langdell (like many have thought) is a complete liar and this is almost certain proof of it.

    To use someone elses game and claim it as your own is shocking and quite despicable. Voltage may look a lot like F-Zero, but at least the devs have created the game themselves, just with large inspiration. Not stolen some screen shots and claimed them as their own.

    A Horrible man, that is ruining the industry!

  • Crea #29 3 years ago

    Tim Langdell is the new Jack Thompson.

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #30 3 years ago

    Mobigames claims Edge Games' open letter is false: [link url=http://ww w.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/Edge+(iPhone)/news.asp?c=14 907
    ]http://ww w.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/Ed...[/link]

    Why am I not surprised?

    EDIT: this link is from the end of the thread smelly posted
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/09 @ 17:20

  • smelly #31 3 years ago

    "this link is from the end of the thread smelly posted "

    I didnt post the link - seasidebaz did.

    (although i admit its where i got my info)

    Also for kicks - Quoted from the igda thread:

    At the start of Section 2 .. it reads:

    "Looking at the history of our company and the history its predecessors in the rights in EDGE/THE EDGE and our family of EDGE marks, we have only ever sued one company over a trademark dispute (well over a decade ago) and that law suit ended in an amicable resolution."

    However, right there in their first letter to Papazian, Tim says:

    "Should you doubt our sincerity in threatening action should you fail to respond, then please note that we sued and won on this very issue in the US Federal Court late last year, and at high cost to us proved in the US courts that we are the undisputed owner of the mark EDGE for any goods or services pertaining to games."

    Edited by 1 at 12/08/09 @ 17:24

  • smelly #32 3 years ago

    EDIT: Does that mean "Edgy" is now free for trademark?

    (dollars signs flash in my eyes)

    .. right, i'm off to trademark Edgy..

  • linksdad #33 3 years ago

    Edge games, they're the guys that write the games magazine, yes? (no!)

    Was merely an illustration that others can and do use the Edge name in a gaming context, all seven of you negative tickers.

  • StooMonster #34 3 years ago

    kangarootoo: Apple change it's name from Apple Computers Inc. to Apple Inc. two years ago, after they had settled with Apple Corps Ltd.

  • teabagger #35 3 years ago

    God bless teh internets and all who sail in her for another fine example of kicking an offensive tosspot to the ground.

  • Sunyavadin #36 3 years ago

    All those concentration camp survivors only said the holocaust happened to make Nazis look bad!!!!

    /me uses Godwin! It's SUPER Effective!
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/09 @ 18:23

  • Skurmedel #37 3 years ago

    He also says that "he never claimed any money" as "can be shown by his emails". But when they ask for a solution he says one of the two only possible solutions is "show me the money biatch". Lovely contradiction there.

  • Redeye #38 3 years ago

    In the previous article, I described Langdell and his actions as 'reprehensible'. Now it would seem that the words 'grasping', 'desperate' and 'cretinous' would also apply, and as such, I hereby award him five extended middle fingers out of five for sheer fuckwittery of the highest order.

  • sneetch #39 3 years ago

    I like this, btw, an interesting excerpt (from the bottom of the Apple Corps vs Apple Computers article linked by Pac-man ate my wife).

    [link url=http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry
    ]http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_...[/link]

    Basically there is no way that were EDGE (the game) and Edge Games put side by side that you could mistake the two; in the words of the Judge in the linked case "only a moron in a hurry would be misled" (I love that!)

    @penhalion

    I wonder... can you trademark a word associated with a concept or domain (e.g. Apple Corps vs Apple Computers) in the US? So they thought that Edge Games was being infringed on by EDGE the game or something?

  • makeamazing #40 3 years ago

    There is no way this guy would get away with and win a case with every single game with the word Edge in the title, but he seems to think that he should fight it anyway... that kind of thing really gets on my nerves. Reading his comments about Mirrors Edge. Yes it has the word Edge in, but not its not the sole word. To then bring out a game (or pretend there is a game) called Mirrors by Edge and then claim that EA are the ones that really should be paying him money for confusing people is an absolute joke. This guy deserves the slating he is getting.

  • RedPanda #41 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • AOFanboi #42 3 years ago

    A trademark is something you are willing to go to court to defend. A registered trademark is something that is way easier to defend in court. But Mr. "Mirrors (a game from) Edge" should walk softly from here on. Or go after U2's guitarist as well.

  • thegamesthething #43 3 years ago

    U2s Edge isnt video game related. Nor is Alderley Edge. Though I wouldn't mind seeing either of them sued.

  • Fleeby #44 3 years ago

    I bet these are just flying off the shelf:

    [link url=http://www.cafep ress.co.uk/EDGEGAMES
    ]http://www.cafep ress.co.uk/EDGEGAMES
    [/link]

    lol

  • eisenhorn666 #45 3 years ago

    So did Paultons Park have to get a licence off this prick and army of trolls to use THE EDGE, I know they made it with out planning permission. They even reckon they licensed "The edge" for the film, this muppet should be shut down.

  • BabyJesus #46 3 years ago

    Good, hopefully now alot of companies will come out and drag mr langdell through the judicial system until he is on his knees.

    Curiously, they used to list EA(langdell cunt), amongst others as 'Partners' but now that section is gone. Hehe seems like Mr Langdell has bitten too much of this cherry.
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/09 @ 21:16

  • schnide #47 3 years ago

    Email the IGDA and tell them how you've only ever heard of EDGE "Games" and the IGDA itself because of articles like these and Langdell's alleged behaviour, and it's given you a negative view of both. I have, and it'll all help.

    Also join the following Facebook group:

    http://ww w.facebook.com/home.php#/group....

  • djcool3005 #48 3 years ago

    Hope this cock sucker gets whats coming to him

  • kangarootoo #49 3 years ago

    @sneetch

    "only a moron in a hurry would be misled"

    That is indeed a great line :)

  • Eighthours #50 3 years ago

    The bit I love is where Langdell claims to have redacted the names of Edge "individuals" and "employees". Notice the plural. He's still trying to pass Edge Games off as some international big player, an active company with many members of staff.

    Edge Games is ONE MAN.

    Tim Langdell.

    No more.
    Edited by 1 at 13/08/09 @ 09:59

  • agparrot #51 3 years ago

    @Eighthours

    The bit I love is where Langdell claims to have redacted the names of Edge "individuals" and "employees". Notice the plural. He's still trying to pass Edge Games off as some international big player, an active company with many members of staff.

    Even better than that, in one of Papazian's emails, Langdell 'redacts' his own name from the To: section of the email, but leaves in the first line of the email, that reads "Dear Dr Langdell".

    Although, as you say, there really can't be any doubt about what names have been blanked out to protect the 'innocent'.

  • actionfitz #52 3 years ago

    Hey Langdell!

    Up your hole with a big Jam Roll!

    yeooo!

  • Turrican #53 3 years ago

    I guess the question Mobigames are mulling over is weather keeping the EDGE name in defiance will get them loads more sales and moral high ground against the fact that Langdell will continue to bite at their ankles and force Apple to prevent the game being sold.

    It could be that they change to a new name and hope enough people will have followed the story to transfer their loyalty to this new brand and buy the product, thus getting the stain of Langdell off the internet conscience and letting him duke it out with EA in vain.

    Some advice to them, don't rename the game Battlecruiser ;p I won't even say the name of who owns that because he will appear because of the spell.

    On the subject of that open letter Langdell has written, I'm sorry but if he is so busy preparing a game like that Wipeout clone (sue him!) then he shouldn't have time to be chasing after indie developers and posting massive internet ego rants like that. Get a life and go do a proper job you waste of space.

  • Skurmedel #54 3 years ago

    Don't summon him Turrican! Don't play with dark magic... Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

  • RobotRocker #55 3 years ago

    @ Turrican

    I heard if you say his name 3 times in the mirror you will get a defimation suit in the mail the next day

    Anyway, Langdell doesnt have a product or anything and he knows as soon as he gets to a proper court, the Judge is going to make his life miserable, hence the baseless threats. If someone actually does bring him to court. Dude is pretty screwed.

    Also, Future are alledgedly paying this guy so they can use the word Edge for Edge magazine. Yet they weasled out on paying Stuart Cambell for money they owed him. No justice in the world eh?

  • RexRunti #56 3 years ago

    I have a feeling that Edge magazine, if they're paying him will soon stop, as it will alienate their readers.

    I hope Future publishing will sue him over his blatent attempts to associate The Edge Games with Edge magazine (see his logos), EA sues him for "MIRRORS (a game by) EDGE", Lexicon sue over claiming images from Voltage are his own (see Smelly's post), and 20th Centuary Fox sue over claiming association with the movie called The Edge and Marvel sues for associating himself with various super heroes with "Edge" in the name.