The Edge of Reason?

By Simon Parkin Published 3 August, 2009

The Tim Langdell story.

Paris, 2009

"It's painful, living with this constant threat. You go home for the weekend and it's all you can talk about with your friends, yet not one of them can help you. You feel alone and there seems to be no way out. It is hard to sleep and to concentrate. We do our best to stay positive but it's difficult. We're finding it hard to start work on our next game."

Eight months ago David Papazian was on top of the world. His company, Mobigame, had just released its first videogame for the iPhone. In the space of just a few weeks it had won two prestigious awards. The past two years of early mornings, late nights and tireless endeavour were set to pay off; the sacrifices had been worth it, the indie developer dream was coming true.

Today, he sits dejected and worn. Banned in the UK, USA and Germany, his game may be critically acclaimed but, for most, it is also impossible to buy. On 15th July, 2009, just one week after Apple nominated Mobigame's debut title as one of their 'Top 30 Favourite iPhone Games', it was removed from the App Store. Not because it's unfinished, or because it might damage your hardware, nor any of the usual reasons that software is removed from sale. Rather, it's banned because of its name: Edge.

London, 1979

This story begins in Covent Garden, London at the end of the 1970s. It was here that a young entrepreneur, Timothy Langdell, founded the game publishing company Softek: Masters of the Game. Softek hired young game makers, offered to bankroll their developments, publish their games, and then split the proceeds. The set-up worked well and, while Softek's releases could hardly be called blockbusters, they were successful enough to fuel the enterprise.

'The Edge of Reason?' Screenshot 1

Tim Langdell.

But Langdell was unhappy. The company name, chosen to reflect the young, fresh vibrancy of an emergent industry, seemed a little embarrassing five years down the line. So in 1984 Langdell changed its name to The Edge, simultaneously registering the trademark in both the US and the UK. In this moment the seeds of a thousand lawsuits were sown: nobody but nobody could use the words 'The Edge' in relation to a videogame-related product without first agreeing it with Langdell. Of that, he would make certain.

By 1990 Langdell was yet to file any lawsuits, but he was no stranger to the courts. That year Michael and Ian Jones, two programmers who worked for The Edge porting the arcade game Soldier of Light to Commodore 64, won a court battle against the publisher for withholding payments. But before they saw any money, Langdell and The Edge had relocated from London to Los Angeles. Langdell claims that the move had nothing to do with avoiding paying his developers. Rather, it was due to a combination of "the weather, an addiction to Pukka Pies and Mushy Peas and a deal involving several hundreds of thousands of pounds paid by Commodore International for The Edge to become a leading Amiga developer assisting with the launch of the CDTV". No one from Commodore was able to verify his claim. Nevertheless, one way or another, The Edge moved stateside.

Los Angeles, 1990

The move to the sunnier climes of Los Angeles brought with it more than an alleged windfall from Commodore. From 1990, perhaps realising what a valuable and wide-ranging trademark it had at its disposal, The Edge's primary business shifted from publishing videogames to vigorously pursuing companies whose products it believed infringed 'The Edge' mark.

From Namco's PlayStation release Soul Edge (which had its name changed to Soul Blade for the West) to Sony's PlayStation Edge to the UK's own Edge magazine, Langdell confronted anyone who used his trademark in relation to videogames. In every case the message was clear: change the name of your product, pay us a licence fee or face a court hearing. Some paid the fee quietly. Others, faced with legal threats that they believed were dubious, turned the tables and instead took The Edge to court. No matter what the outcome of these cases, Langdell's energy in protecting his trademark never faltered, even if the trickle of games that bore the name had long since dried up.

France, 2007

'The Edge of Reason?' Screenshot 2

Alien Syndrome - a The Edge property which has seen recent new light.

In 2007 David Papazian founded Mobigame with his associate, Matthieu Malot. For two years the pair worked on their debut iPhone title under the working title Cube, changing the name to Edge when they read previews of another developer's game of the same name. Edge was released in December 2008 to critical acclaim, winning the prestigious Milthon award for Best Mobile Game in Paris and the IMGA (International Mobile Game Award) at the mobile world congress in Barcelona. These accomplishments provided a ringing endorsement of Apple's emerging platform, proving that two men could turn a good idea into a global success without the backing of a major publisher.

But not everyone shared in the celebration. On 7th April, 2009, five months after its release, Papazian received an email from Apple. It stated: "We have received notice from Edge Games, Inc. ('Edge') that Edge believes your application named Edge infringes Edge's rights. Accordingly, please take steps to review your application to ensure that it does not violate the rights of another party."

Langdell had found Mobigame.

Papazian emailed Langdell directly, hoping to work through the issue amicably. On the 22nd April he wrote: "We chose the name Edge because it reflects the game's style: the cube you navigate through levels is always hanging on the edge. I did not know about your company or your games before. Please believe me that we did not intend to pass our game off as one of yours in any way."

Later that same day, Langdell responded, first assuring Papazian of his support of independent developers, before stating, forcefully, the need for financial resolution. "I am a strong supporter of innovation in games," he wrote. "It is not our intention to do anything other than encourage originality in games and to encourage new game makers. But the problem is that using the trademark 'EDGE' for a game is a direct infringement of our international rights. We have spent a lot of time (and a large amount of money) stopping everyone who tries to use the mark EDGE [for a] game. You wouldn't think of using 'Activision' as the name of a game would you? Even though there has never been a game called Activision. Or 'Electronic Arts' or 'Nintendo'? No, all these names are so closely associated with the name of the company, you would not be permitted to use them for a game without the express permission of the trademark owner... It is the same with EDGE."

'The Edge of Reason?' Screenshot 3

Of course, the key difference between made-up words such as Activison and Nintendo is that 'edge' is a word with common meaning and in wide usage. But more worrying than this was Langdell's subsequent accusation, that Mobigame's Edge was, in fact, a direct copy of one of the publisher's earliest games.

"As to how original...your game is," Langdell wrote. "I have to differ with you. I think it is a nice game, well programmed, but it plays almost the same as many of our early games for which we are famous such as 'BOBBY BEARING'. Whereas in Bobby Bearing you play a ball rather than a cube, much of the game is rolling around looking for switches that move blocks so that you can get to the next section, or looking for objects you must roll over to get points... Indeed, we have been flooded with communications from people who think your game is made by us because we are so famous for our 1980s games which look almost exactly the same as your[s]."

Whether or not The Edge had been "flooded with communications" from concerned consumers, the accusation was a serious one, opening the way for Langdell to seek compensation for more than just a trademark infringement. He offered Papazian two ways out: "One: change the name of your game to something that does not contain the word EDGE in it within the next 7 calendar days. Two: License the right to use the trademark 'EDGE' from us."

But what appeared to be a straightforward offer turned out to be a more complex settlement as Langdell continued: "If you decide to take option 1, then we would need payment for your use of the trademark to the day you change the name. We propose 25 per cent of the revenues you have received from the game to the day you stop using our mark. If you decide to take option 2, then [you would need to add] a subtitle such as "EDGE: An Homage to Bobby Bearing" and to add our company name (EDGE Games Inc) immediately below yours in the opening screen."

The choice for Papazian was an impossible one: change the name of the game significantly, lose the brand recognition that name had accrued and pay The Edge a quarter of all past revenues. Or, alternatively, change the name a little, imply the game was a homage to something it was not and pay The Edge 10 per cent of all past and future revenues.

'The Edge of Reason?' Screenshot 4

Understandably, Papazian didn't respond immediately. He needed time to weigh these options, to seek legal counsel, to find out whether this nightmare was in fact an immovable reality. 24 hours later, having had no response from Papazian, Langdell piled on the pressure: "We had hoped to see your reply by this time today," he wrote. "Will we be receiving it? Or will we be filing the court actions in the US and UK? Please advise."

Over the next few days, discussions between the two men became more fraught. Papazian was fighting a battle on two fronts, firstly defending the use of the word Edge in his game, and secondly deflecting accusations of plagiarism. Langdell rebutted every email, often replying in all caps and underscore: "STOP USING OUR TRADEMARK TODAY or ENTERING (sic) INTO A SETTLEMENT TODAY," and "YOU ONLY HAVE UNTIL THE END OF TODAY TO EITHER TAKE THE GAME DOWN FROM iTUNES ENTIRELY or CHANGE ITS NAME".

Papazian claims that Langdell always emailed on a Friday afternoon, setting an ultimatum for the Monday so that Mobigame could take no legal counsel over the weekend before responding. While that may have just been coincidence, the pressure was too much. Papazian removed Edge from the iTunes store. "We had to take a rest to think," he told me. "Langdell was threatening me personally with legal action, saying it could cost me millions of dollars. I had to find some space to think."

Los Angeles 2009

Timothy Langdell is a difficult man to speak to. My first attempt at contact is flatly ignored, a response finally drawn only when I mail his personal email address to point out that we'd spoken at length to Mobigame and were eager to hear his side of the story.

Claiming to be someone other than Tim (although never offering a name or position within the company) a representative from The Edge writes: "Tim will not be replying [to your questions]. This has already been distorted from an Edge Games issue into an attack on Tim personally. He is thus not having any involvement in this matter going forward and has not had a personal involvement in this issue for some time now." In a later email we're told: "This is entirely a corporate Edge matter: it is Edge that has had the contact with Mobigame. Not Tim." This despite the fact that every single piece of correspondence between The Edge and Mobigames I have seen is signed 'Tim Langdell' .

Refusing to answer our questions, the Edge representative repeatedly requests to see a transcript of our interview with Mobigame so he/she can "respond to specific accusations". We refuse. Eventually, the representative (who, by demonstrating an intimate knowledge of the facts and dialogue between the two parties was almost certainly Langdell himself) begins, slowly at first and then in longer responses, to answer our questions.

'The Edge of Reason?' Screenshot 5

The disputed game, Edge.

I ask Langdell to respond to critics who argue he is a trademark troll, seeking income from trademark actions rather than from selling games software. "We categorically deny we have ever acted as 'Trademark Trolls'," he replies. "We do not engage in the practice of waiting until people use our trademarks and then ask them for money (there is no evidence we have ever done that) and we have been actively developing and publishing games every year since 1979, and actively producing game hardware since the early nineties."

Visit the company's website today and their discography puts the total number of Softek/The Edge releases at 756 titles, a staggeringly high number of games, even for a publisher of their venerable age. Upon closer inspection, it seems as though they've counted different formats of the same game as separate releases. By contrast, Rob Fearon, who meticulously compiled a list of those games that could be verified as The Edge releases, counts the total at a more modest 70 titles, the most recent of which was released in 1990.

I ask Langdell to name three of The Edge's commercially released games from the past five years. He replies: "Edge has focused on developing mobile games in the past few years, with Bobby Bearing for a wide range of mobile handsets being a consistent good seller in the UK, Europe and America (three new versions of it in 2008, one new version earlier this year and the iPhone 'Remix' version about to be launched)." Other than this 30-year-old re-release, Langdell does not mention a single other commercially available game he has published in the past decade, despite my repeated asking.

I then turn to the Mobigames case, asking Langdell to identify when he first heard about the French developer's game. Papazian and others have claimed The Edge waited until the game was a well-known success before writing to Apple, when changing the name would have been too costly for the developer. "There is no truth to the unfounded speculation circling the internet that we deliberately delayed before notifying Mobigame of the trademark infringement." Langdell is adamant. "We first heard about Mobigame's use of our trademark EDGE shortly after the game was released on iTunes. We contacted Mobigame immediately pointing out we own the trademark THE EDGE and, as the law requires, asked them to cease and desist from use of our trademark."

'The Edge of Reason?' Screenshot 6

And Bobby Bearing.

I ask Langdell what would have to change for Mobigames to be able to once again offer the game for sale in the UK and US. "Edge has not retracted the settlement offer it made to Mobigame in early June for it to rename its game to EDGY (or such other new name that Edge and Mobigame can agree does not infringe Edge's trademark rights) and remains hopeful Mobigame will eventually respond to it so that Mobigame's game can once again go on sale."

When I ask Papazian about the proposed name change to EDGY he is quick to point out that this was something he suggested earlier in the year but that, at the time, Langdell flatly refused the offer. He sends me Langdell's email response to Mobigame's offer to change the name of their game to EDGY, sent on the 15th May: "[We] would very strongly oppose your use of EDGY which is clearly just adding the 'y' sound to the end of our famous trademark EDGE," Landgell wrote. "In fact, we won a case against someone who tried to use EDGY so we are confident we would win should you try to do that. You need to stop infringing our trademark EDGE and select an entirely different [original emphasis] name for your game which does not even suggest our trademark."

On the 16th May, the following day The Edge moved to register EDGY as a trademark in America. I press Langdell on the EDGY issue. He writes: "No proposal we have ever made to Mobigame regarding their changing the name of the game to EDGY has involved their paying us a licence [fee], or paying us any money at all."

But, if you had no intention of asking for licence fee to be paid to you for the use of EDGY, I ask, then why trademark the name the day after Mobigames first proposed the name change? "In hindsight it was a misunderstanding, probably in part caused by David Papazian's less than perfect English," he explains. "But at the point we were discussing the EDGY settlement in May we understood Mobigame was in agreement Edge would technically hold the EDGY registration and Mobigame would license it from us for free. This way Edge could use its legal team to protect Mobigame should anyone ever challenge Mobigame's use of EDGY".

This version of events is certainly not born out by the original emails. But besides that, why would The Edge want to protect an unrelated company for no recompense? Out of the goodness of their hearts? That seems unlikely, especially coming from a company run with Langdell's cutthroat business savvy.

(UPDATE, 08/08/2009: As of July 2009, Edge Corp. has abandoned its application for the EDGY trademark and claims it would be happy for Mobigame to rename its game in the manner originally suggested.)

England 2009

'The Edge of Reason?' Screenshot 7

Despite all of the half-truths and heated email exchanges, one key question resounds above all others: what exactly does Tim Langdell's trademark of The Edge entitle him to? Will anyone who wants to release a videogame with the word 'Edge' in the title have to pay his company a licence fee? Langdell remains adamant that they do. He clearly thinks he has done nothing wrong. This month, following Apple's banning of the game, Sheridans Solicitors in London have taken up Mobigames' case. I ask Alex Chapman, the lawyer dealing with the case the million-dollar (plus legal fees) question.

"Mobigame's position is that the trademarks owned by Mr. Langdell's companies are not enforceable against Mobigame or any third party in respect of the distribution of the EDGE game," he replies. "There are two main reasons for this. First, there is unlikely to be any confusion or association between them and Mobigame's game and secondly Mobigame's position is that some of those registrations are liable to be revoked ."

When I put this to Langdell he reponds: "At this point we seriously do not know whether to laugh or cry."

This is a story it's easy to choose a side on. When David faces Goliath, few people cheer on the giant, especially when he's wielding a club and a court order. Accordingly, much of the reporting on the story has been slanted against Langdell. That's understandable. His tone is fractious, his claims seemingly exaggerated and self-aggrandising and, in threatening a two-man indie developer with legal action that, in his words, will potentially cost them "hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs [plus] three times [their] revenues" he inspires no sympathy. He writes like a bully, regardless of whether he has the law on his side or not.

'The Edge of Reason?' Screenshot 8

But until a legal team can systematically pick apart his trademark claims - as indeed Chapman intends to - Langdell has a case, no matter how unsavory you find his tone, his alleged use of shill forum accounts to add volume to his arguments, or the way in which he flaunts his licensee's products as his own. Langdell clearly believes he has done nothing wrong and that his energetic confrontations are something that trademark law requires him to do. Fail to protect your trademark and you lose it, he tells me repeatedly.

There's no denying that Langdell has made a great many enemies over the past 30 years and there seems to be a gathering conglomerate of interested parties who want to see him and his companies brought down. International development industry forum The Chaos Engine has even set up a fund to help finance Mobigame's legal expenses. Most of the people I spoke to off the record seemed eager to offer anecdotes that reveal Langdell's true character and motivations, but something stops them. Some companies were unwilling to even allow a "no comment" statement to be published in this article next to their names. Perhaps that's because they're scared of litigation, or perhaps they don't want to compromise a case that they intend to bring against his company in the future. Whatever the reason, where Timothy Langdell is concerned, everybody treads carefully: when you're this close to the edge, one slip up could prove costly.

Picture of Simon.

About Simon Parkin

Simon Parkin is an author and journalist on video games. A regular contributor to Eurogamer since 2005, his work has also appeared in Edge, The Telegraph, Gamasutra and Boing Boing.

Read more articles from Simon by visiting the Simon Parkin archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (287) 2 years ago

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

  • mingster #1 3 years ago

    So he could call the game something else and publish no problem.

  • UncleLou #2 3 years ago

    Before everyone has a hissy fit here:

    Yes, the guy isn't behaving fairly, at all, and is abusing the system. But at the end of the day, it's not that much different to Apple fiercely attacking anyone who uses the term "apple", or a logo of an apple.

    And a lot of people seem to have, more or less deliberatley, helped the guy - by accepting licenses, they make sure he genuinely uses the trademark (through 3rd parties), otherwise it could probably get deleted because of non-use. "EDGY" might well get deleted though, because it's hard to argue it wasn't applied for in bad faith.

    "Of course, the key difference between made-up words such as Activison and Nintendo is that 'edge' is a word with common meaning and in wide usage."

    That doesn't matter much. You can't register an existing word for something that it describes, but everything else is possible. Third parties are obviously still allowed to use such a registered word descriptively, but not as a trademark for identical goods. See my above Apple example.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 14:00

  • DanWhitehead #3 3 years ago

    But, as the article states, the game has already won acclaim and awareness under it's existing name.

    I can't help wondering if they went after EA over Mirror's Edge with the same vigour.

  • kestral #4 3 years ago

    Mirrors Edgy?
    Exactly.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 14:08

  • Tzetrik #5 3 years ago

    jerk

  • Sunyavadin #6 3 years ago

    And THIS is why it should be legal to copyright a particular logo using a word, a particular way of PRESENTING it, or a word which you HAVE MADE UP, but illegal to copyright any word found in a dictionary prior to your inventing it...



    Also Langdell is scum. Utter parasitic human detritus.
    I sure hope nobody gets the idea to start flooding him with hatemail or picketing him or anything like that. Because that'd be utterly reprehensible, right?

    Now I think about it, what if people suddenly decided to start releasing hundreds of things with "Edge" in the title. Or even petitioned the local council of Alderley Edge to sue HIM over his use of the name. I'm pretty sure they "owned the rights to it" from the 17th century...
    Edited by 2 at 03/08/09 @ 14:21

  • asphaltcowboy #7 3 years ago

    "I can't help wondering if they went after EA over Mirror's Edge with the same vigour."

    Me too! Wondering if EA just paid up quietly or somehow The EDGE decided that maybe it's better to pick on someone their own (or considerably smaller) size?

  • lambtron #8 3 years ago

    "Yes, the guy isn't behaving fairly, at all, and is abusing the system. But at the end of the day, it's not that much different to Apple fiercely attacking anyone who uses the term "apple", or a logo of an apple."

    That's a poor analogy UncleLou - apple at least make a tangible product. This parasite just exploits people.

    Personally, I think he should be fired into the sun.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 14:19

  • Whizzo #9 3 years ago

    They should just rename it to "Tim is a See You Next Tuesday".

  • DanWhitehead #10 3 years ago

    This is also the reason why U2 have yet to appear in Guitar Hero or Rock Band.

  • miiiguel #11 3 years ago

    As the article says it's pretty easy to choose a side, and this gentleman seems to be quite a shady character though why didn't Mobigames guys checked this issue 1st?

  • Ranger101 #12 3 years ago

    Ooh good spot with Mirror's Edge.

    Langdell has a right to defend his trademark, but the registering of "Edgy" after discussion with MobiGames is really, really bad faith in litigation. This is something that MobiGames lawyers have going for them - in order to out Langdell as an alleged* (THAT'S ALLEGED - i.e. unverified, unconfirmed, possible, not proven) extortionist of sorts.

    "We'll protect you [trademarks and copyrights for you under the EDGY name].... as long as you pay us for our services of course....otherwise you might face financial ruin"

    Any one who's watched any Italian Mob move or The Soprano's might find that phrasing familiar.

  • ShakaCarnage #13 3 years ago

    Apple doesn't own the Applie Mark, Lou.

    But Simon, Bravo. Loved this.

  • mingster #14 3 years ago

    Try making a game called SUN.
    You wouldn't be able to publish that either and its a generic word.
    Unfortunately although Tim is a total git he is perfectly correct pursuing his trademarks agressively.
    So would you if you had bothered to register some.
    Mobigames were just unlucky coming up against that particular TM holder.
    They just have to change the game name no other option.

  • Ranger101 #15 3 years ago

    Anyone know if Edge magazine licensed it or contested it?

  • Sunyavadin #16 3 years ago

    Has he sued the guitarist from U2 yet?

  • Sunyavadin #17 3 years ago

    Yes, and this is why the law is WRONG.

    It's an outdated concept intended for a much smaller world. It has no place ina modern society, where basic laws of probability mean it's nigh impossible to use anything in a name that has not been used before, and where what would have been a small, unheard of business by the same name which nobody would have noticed now has an internet presence and so can be rapidly brought to the attention of anyone such as a trademark owner...
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 14:32

  • Whizzo #18 3 years ago

    Come to think of it I don't think Bobby Bearing featured a subtitle "A Homage to Spindizzy It Being a Homage to Marble Madness", I hope Tim corrects this in future.

  • Redeye #19 3 years ago

    I've read a fair bit about this guy since the game first saw light of day, and 'reprehensible' is possibly the politest word I could think of to describe him, his attitude and his actions.

  • Ranger101 #20 3 years ago

    Could you call your game "EdgeegdE" and not license it. If So, Mobigames should take that name and just market the title as a nice, mirrored Palindrome for officially licensed name of Edgeegde which in no way can be confused with "Edge" and now "Edgy".

  • UncleLou #21 3 years ago

    "Yes, the guy isn't behaving fairly, at all, and is abusing the system. But at the end of the day, it's not that much different to Apple fiercely attacking anyone who uses the term "apple", or a logo of an apple."

    That's a poor analogy UncleLou - apple at least make a tangible product. This parasite just exploits people.

    Personally, I think he should be fired into the sun.

    Sorry, but it's not a poor analogy at all - in fact, it's exactly the same, legally - a company or an individual monopolising an existing word for certain goods or services. The scandal isn't that he has such a trademark. A large percentage of trademarks are not made-up words.

    You say he isn't using the trademark, but others are using it for him. To give you another (again, legally the same) example: McDonald's isn't using its trademarks, either. Independent McDonald's fast food restaurants do it for them with a license.

    My point being: the legal system behind this isn't some random nonsense, and 99,99% of the time it works well. It's just if someone has some creative energy and not the best of intentions, the system can be exploited. It's just not possible to make it watertight.


    And as far as Mirror's Edge goes: that's too far removed from the isolated word "EDGE". He wouldn't be able to proceed against them with reasonable chances of success.
    Edited by 2 at 03/08/09 @ 14:34

  • Mawich #22 3 years ago

    I'd dispute that it's an infringement. The Edge is a publishing company (even if they haven't published much recently). Edge is a video game. They surely exist in different namespaces... and there's no 'The' in the name of the game in question, either. I know you're supposed to aggressively protect trademarks, but surely you can do it without being a git in the process.

  • bliprunner #23 3 years ago

    "It's not that much different to Apple fiercely attacking anyone who uses the term "apple", or a logo of an apple. "

    I don't think they mind if you use the word Apple. A quick search of the app store reveals "Apple Twister", "Apple Tree" and more.

    But if you made a computer and tried to sell it as "Apple" they would sue your ass to hell and back, but they are a large recognised company, "The Edge" are hardly recognised in their own industry.

    Scam artists, preying on indie devs... disgusting.

  • swede #24 3 years ago

    Damn! I was going to call my new Edgware based software house Edgware...

  • Sunyavadin #25 3 years ago

    "But if you made a computer and tried to sell it as "Apple" they would sue your ass to hell and back, but they are a large recognised company, "The Edge" are hardly recognised in their own industry.

    Scam artists, preying on indie devs... disgusting."

    Truth.

    TBH until today I had honestly assumed they were just another of the companies who went bust in the early 90s, since I'd not heard anything of them since then.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 14:37

  • kangarootoo #26 3 years ago

    @UncleLou

    "And as far as Mirror's Edge goes: that's too far removed from the isolated word "EDGE". He wouldn't be able to proceed against them with reasonable chances of success."

    What about the Soul Edge game mentioned in the article? They seemed to bow to his pressure.

    This is a genuine question btw. I don't really know anything about copyright law (and don't pretend to).

  • Dillinger #27 3 years ago

    i hope this greasy troll gets a tremendous shitkicking if he ever appears at another gaming event.

  • Spooke #28 3 years ago

    it says on the Edge website that they are responsible for Edge Magazine. I never realised that my hard earned money was going into that scumbags pocket.

    Last time I buy that then.

  • Ranger101 #29 3 years ago

    "i hope this greasy troll gets a tremendous shitkicking if he ever appears at another gaming event. "

    Not likely, it sounds like this dude has no real interest in the video games industry for him to bother turning up at any.

  • Ranger101 #30 3 years ago

    "it says on the Edge website that they are responsible for Edge Magazine. I never realised that my hard earned money was going into that scumbags pocket.

    Last time I buy that then. "

    Ah, so they licensed it then.

  • Eighthours #31 3 years ago

    Ah, an article on this finally. Excellent.

    It's worth pointing out that this "non-trademark troll" some months ago put a new game on his website that is supposedly in development. It's called - and I'm not making this up - "Mirrors (A Game By) Edge." See the plan here? The man is utterly contemptible.

    Also, in a preemptive stunt, Edge Games obtained a trademark for “Edge of Twilight” on June 1st. This is coincidentally the name of an upcoming game for the Xbox 360, PS3, and PC from a dev called Fuzzyeyes, and it's been known about for a couple of years. What a coincidence that Langdell has chosen shortly before its release to register that trademark.

    He's a lying scumbag, frankly.
    Edited by 2 at 03/08/09 @ 14:42

  • DUFFKING #32 3 years ago

    Spooke, I think that's just another example of him being a dick with nothing others can do about it.

  • robg #33 3 years ago

    They should say sorry and be very contrite. Then re-release it with gardening-related art assets, and call it HEDGE.

  • Ranger101 #34 3 years ago

    "As of June 1, 2009, Edge Games applied for a US trademark for the phrase, "Edge of Twilight."[15] This is the name of an upcoming steampunk fantasy game that has been in development by Fuzzyeyes Studios for at least two years.[16][17]"


    Cunt.

  • Dillinger #35 3 years ago

    AFAIK edge magazine -did- have to license it from him, in the early days. i think it did used to have some sort of written legal bumpf to that effect. not sure if it is anymore though..

  • KrissAkabusi #36 3 years ago

    "He writes like a bully, regardless of whether he has the law on his side or not."

    How ironic. This is a four-page character assassination of Langdell. Seems Eurogamer doesn't mind playing the bully either.

    This article is ill-timed, ill-conceived and seriously lacking in journalistic integrity.

  • Sunyavadin #37 3 years ago

    "I wonder if U2 pay him any royalties."

    Yeah, that's what I was asking... I'd like to see him try suing them.

  • comedian #38 3 years ago

    They own EDGE magazine?!

    WTF?!

  • brainbird #39 3 years ago

    Mobigames would sell tonloads of their game on sympathy alone if they called it FYTL instead of EDGE.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 14:46

  • jonnyboyband #40 3 years ago

    Nice article.

    This guy must be one of the biggest pieces of human waste in the history of mankind.

    The story also highlights how vulnerable you are as an iPhone developer, as Apple can pull an app for any reason whatsoever. Google got the FCC in the US to investigate the Google Voice thing, but if you happen to be a smaller company than Google...

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #41 3 years ago

    On the Apple trademark discussion above: Apple themselves have been sued numerous times by Apple Records for moving into the music realm - see here http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps...

  • Sunyavadin #42 3 years ago

    "How ironic. This is a four-page character assassination of Langdell. Seems Eurogamer doesn't mind playing the bully either.

    This article is ill-timed, ill-conceived and seriously lacking in journalistic integrity.
    "

    That's like saying in the middle of 1942 that an article which came across as a character assassination of Hitler was "ill timed" or "ill conceived". Lacking in journalistic integrity? That's debatable, but a reasonable enough argument to merit further discussion.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 14:48

  • mingster #43 3 years ago

    Edge magazine had to pay him to use the name.
    They licensed the name from him.

    Due to people paying up and licensing the name it just legitimizes his trademark and makes it more uncontestable.

    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 15:57

  • Drone #44 3 years ago

    @ KrissAkabusi
    "This article is ill-timed, ill-conceived and seriously lacking in journalistic integrity"

    How so?

  • Vroom #45 3 years ago

    Interesting read.

  • Ranger101 #46 3 years ago

    "This article is ill-timed, ill-conceived and seriously lacking in journalistic integrity. "


    Really? It's constantly stated throughout that the journalist prompted and approached Tim Langdell repeatedly for comment and response to the allegations made against him. It was also made clear that Tim Langdell is more than likely legally correct and that Mobigames will have a difficult time contesting their case.

    Furthermore, documentary evidence is sought and presented where there was conflict of comment.

    That speaks integrity to me. The structure, thought and strategy towards constructing the article is also very clearly present. I have no comment towards the timing, as I am not aware of why posting this article today, on this date, should be an issue.
    Please expand on your comment further.

    Or.. STFU.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 14:52

  • miiiguel #47 3 years ago

    Spoted! KrissAkabusi is Tim Langdell.

    It does sound like the playing the victim style. Eurogamer you're going to be so sued!
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 14:52

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #48 3 years ago

    If I was the EDGE developers I'd change the name to L:EDGE/hEDGE/wEDGE whatever and get the game out there again. There's enough PR around this story to drive thousands of new buyers, they can make some money to contribute towards the legal fight and draw a line under the earnings this tosspot can take off them.

  • Spooke #49 3 years ago

    If it wasn't for this:

    If you decide to take option 2, then [you would need to add] a subtitle such as "EDGE: An Homage to Bobby Bearing" and to add our company name (EDGE Games Inc) immediately below yours in the opening screen.

    then changing the name would be easy but he's not just contesting the name, he's claiming it's a rip off of Bobby Bearing.
    The dev is pretty much stuffed when you are against a highly litigious individual such as this.

  • Ranger101 #50 3 years ago

    Bobby Bearing... Marble Madness would like a word with you...

    VAzon, it has appeared time and time again that Common sense has no place in IP Law.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 14:55

  • Spooke #51 3 years ago

    who owns the rights to Marble Madness?

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #52 3 years ago

    "Try making a game called SUN.
    You wouldn't be able to publish that either"

    Of course you would. Langdell's claims have NEVER, as far as I know, been upheld in court.

  • Ranger101 #53 3 years ago

    Marble Madness is owned currently by....er....ooooooh...Midway... not good.

    Oh no, wait Warner Bros bought most of Midway's assets - I'm sure a good bargain was found in purchasing the Atari IP.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 15:02

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #54 3 years ago

    "How ironic. This is a four-page character assassination of Langdell. Seems Eurogamer doesn't mind playing the bully either.
    This article is ill-timed, ill-conceived and seriously lacking in journalistic integrity. "

    Hello Tim!

  • UncleLou #55 3 years ago

    It's an outdated concept intended for a much smaller world. It has no place ina modern society, where basic laws of probability mean it's nigh impossible to use anything in a name that has not been used before, and where what would have been a small, unheard of business by the same name which nobody would have noticed now has an internet presence and so can be rapidly brought to the attention of anyone such as a trademark owner...

    And yet, first and formeostly, it protects you. Because when you go into a shop and buy an Xbox 360, you want to be sure it's exactly that, and made by Microsoft, and not a Chinese knock-off with the same name, made by a company with the same name.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 15:03

  • GamesConnoisseur #56 3 years ago

    Doesnt matter if legally Tim Langdell is within his rights, a sum of his humanity and how he contributed to the world in the past decade or more have been just to run after anyone using 'Edge' as that belongs to his company.

    I respected Edge for some of their games on Spectrum but the person is just so low and I would encourage people to use EDGE in their emails, websites etc on a non commerical basis just to flood his searches and let him enjoy the thrills of chasing people for money!

    Hope he will get his comeuppance in the courts, but dont think one failure will stop him until trademark and copyright are overhauled and updated to the today more creative and media savvy society.

  • Lukus #57 3 years ago

    I'm going to trademark the word 'the'.

    See you all in court. And hell.

  • UncleLou #58 3 years ago

    @kangaroo:

    Regarding Soul Edge, I doubt he could have done much. I guess he's clever enough to keep the license fees so low that people don't mind paying to be left alone. A problem in that regard is that the UK is widely considered to be a lawless country when it comes to IP, due to the ridiuclous attorney fees.

  • DaM #59 3 years ago

    On the Apple trademark discussion above: Apple themselves have been sued numerous times by Apple Records for moving into the music realm - see here [link url=http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps...
    ]http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps...[/link]

    Settled by Apple agreeing to stick to computers and not move into the music game.

    Oh wait....

  • JJrabbit #60 3 years ago

    @UncleLou:
    "And yet, first and formeostly, it protects you. Because when you go into a shop and buy an Xbox 360, you want to be sure it's exactly that, and made by Microsoft, and not a Chinese knock-off with the same name, made by a company with the same name."

    There's a difference between going into a shop and having two xboxes, one made from Microsoft and one made from Microsopht, and this situation. I, for one, would never get confused between a game called "Edge" published by MobiGames and a publisher called "The Edge" (namely as I'd never heard of them before). Trademarks, as far as I know, can only be infringed upon if it can cause considerable confusion between products. Therefore, your example between two xboxes wouldn't work. That aside, Xbox, is a made up word where as 'edge' has been around for some time and is used in everyday language.
    Edited by 2 at 03/08/09 @ 15:13

  • rayk2099 #61 3 years ago

    Thanks for this, EG

  • PearOfAnguish #62 3 years ago

    Why doesn't the job advisor at school tell you it's possible to make a career out of trademarking a common word and then being a litigious cunt?

    How ironic. This is a four-page character assassination of Langdell. Seems Eurogamer doesn't mind playing the bully either.
    This article is ill-timed, ill-conceived and seriously lacking in journalistic integrity.

    That's either Tim, or another Darkfall retard who has no idea what the phrase 'journalistic integrity' means but likes to use it anyway because it sounds good.

  • DanWhitehead #63 3 years ago

    I find it very interesting that he's going after games that use "edge" in their titles, yet a Google search reveals dozens of companies around the world using the name Edge Software, or some variation thereof. That seems to me a more obvious avenue for accusations of "passing off", assuming that his company's profile is so high that anyone seeing the word "Edge" in conjunction with software would connect it with him.

    Apple would certainly litigate if you launched a competing product using "apple" in any market where it has obvious connotations to their brand, but as far as I know they've never stopped anyone using the word "apple" in the title of a creative work. That's what Langdell is doing, and I'm surprised there's no legal defence against that. Something similar to Fair Use, perhaps.

  • schnide #64 3 years ago

    10 Euro donated.. thanks to Zero_Cool for the inspiration.

  • UncleLou #65 3 years ago

    And Apple has proceeded against all kinds of institutions and persons themselves using the word apple or a logo depicting an apple for all kinds of goods and services - sometimes succesful, sometimes less so. Including - I kid you not - New York.

  • Lukus #66 3 years ago

    So, we're all in agreement. Tim Langdell is a cockmuncher.

    /watches the plus ones come rolling in

  • Spooke #67 3 years ago

    I think he should change the name, employ the good gamers of the net to help him get the word out and contest the fact Langdell has a claim it's like Bobby Bearing by countering that he stole the concept from Midway in the first place.

    If he did that I would donate gladly.
    Edited by 2 at 03/08/09 @ 15:15

  • UncleLou #68 3 years ago

    "There's a difference between going into a shop and having two xboxes, one made from Microsoft and one made from Microsopht, and this situation."

    Er, of course. But the guy I quoted suggested doing away with trademarks, in which case the second Xbbox would not have been made by "Microsopht", but also by "Microsoft". That was my entire point.

    "Trademarks, as far as I know, can only be infringed upon if it can cause considerable confusion between products."

    Yes. He's got a trademark that's protected for "games", and proceeded against someone using it for a game. I am not sure I can follow you right now.

  • kangarootoo #69 3 years ago

    Another interesting resource for information on this subject.

    [link url=http://tigsour ce.com/pages/edge-games/
    ]http://tigsour ce.com/pages/edge-games/
    [/link]

  • Dr_Wadd #70 3 years ago

    Right, this is what needs to be done. First, we need to find someone callled Tim Langdell and persuade them to start up a fledging game development company, as small as needs be for this plan to work. They call the company something like Tim Langdell Software and trademark the term. Because we've got a Tim Langdell the name of the company is legitimate, but then they start to file claims against the Tim Langdell everytime he wants to use his own name. He's constantly argued that the important identifying factor in his claims is the name "The Edge", so he can`t very well argue that his own name is important to his agenda, but if he wants to lay claim on a perfectly valid English word I say get revenge by laying claim on his very name.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 15:18

  • septimus #71 3 years ago

    Guy is a twat. Read a lot about him before. He even has a game supposedly in development called Mirrors, and on his site it is phrased to read Mirrors Edge. I would like him to take on someone like EA. That would be hilarious. Or for them to sue him for Mirrors.

  • UncleLou #72 3 years ago

    I'm rolling in negativity today. :p

    So am I, but then I guess it's hard for some people to understand that I am not defending the guy at all, just trying to give some background why it's not so terribly unusual what's happening here, and to contradict some of the knee-jerk nonsense.

    /wtaches neg-o-meter :p

  • PearOfAnguish #73 3 years ago

    That seems to me a more obvious avenue for accusations of "passing off", assuming that his company's profile is so high that anyone seeing the word "Edge" in conjunction with software would connect it with him.

    I suspect he only goes after certain targets: small companies and lone devs who have had some measure of success. If you fulfil this criteria then Langdell knows that not only do you have some money but you probably lack the legal know-how and corporate solicitors of a big company, making it easy for him to extort cash with legal threats without actually going to court.

    edit: actually it looks like he's tried to sue Sony, among others, according to that TIGsource article, so I guess he's just dumb.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 15:25

  • JJrabbit #74 3 years ago

    @UncleLou: Ah, fair enough. I was under the impression that the quoted person would keep trademarks but lax infringment laws and make a significant distinction between a trademarked madeup work and a trademarked real work. Regardless, even if Edge's trademarks are within the games industry, it seems that it's also affecting the movie industry:
    "Edge's website also claims that the movie The Edge was released under license from Edge Gaming, though it isn't clear what, if any, involvement Edge or Langdell had in creating or producing the movie.[1]"
    True, we're not sure whether the film had anything to do with Langdell, but if not, this is a major flaw in trademark laws.

  • UncleLou #75 3 years ago

    Apple would certainly litigate if you launched a competing product using "apple" in any market where it has obvious connotations to their brand, but as far as I know they've never stopped anyone using the word "apple" in the title of a creative work. That's what Langdell is doing, and I'm surprised there's no legal defence against that. Something similar to Fair Use, perhaps.

    Yeah, that's not a bad suggestion - there is something like "fair use" in trademark law, but it doesn't cover this. On the other hadn, though, you have to consider that, in most cases, the exploitation works the other way round. Just imagine how many gazillion "Halo" products would be available if using an existing word for a creative work was always fair use.

  • KrissAkabusi #76 3 years ago

    @ranger101 and others

    http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_...

    There's no doubting the quality of the research. The problem lies in Simon openly writing that he's thrown objectivity and impartiality out of the window with this one. He's picked a side and that breaks a basic principle of journalism, and kind of dents this sites credibility for me. The pitfalls of trademark law for small developers is certainly a worthwhile topic to report on, but if Simon believes the current law should be changed to avoid exploitation by the likes of Langdell, then the focus should have be on that and not on Langdell's character. I feel the approach taken really diminishes the cause.

  • PearOfAnguish #77 3 years ago

    He even has a game supposedly in development called Mirrors

    From the TIGsource article...

    Trademark Filings by Edge Games:

    - Edgy (filed in US on May 16, 2009)

    - Mirror’s Spore (filed in UK on May 19, 2009)

    - Soulspore (filed in UK on May 19, 2009)

    - Edge of Twilight (filed in UK on June 1, 2009)


    'Mirror's Spore'. That's hilarious. Trying to cash in on Twilight as well. Way to go!

  • kangarootoo #78 3 years ago

    Christ, how did THIS happen?

    [link url=http:// www.igda.org/newsroom/press_031109.php
    ]http://ww w.igda.org/newsroom/press_03110...[/link]

    The IGDA, the organisation that exists to represent and support the small developer, has Tim Langdell on its board of directors.

    Sheesh.

  • Les #79 3 years ago

    "But at the end of the day, it's not that much different to Apple fiercely attacking anyone who uses the term "apple", or a logo of an apple."

    In fact, Apple themselves were sued by The Beatles' Apple and eventually worked out a deal as Apple wasn't (then) into music.

  • goz #80 3 years ago

    RE: the character assassination comment, Langdell seems to be doing a good enough job of that himself, what with the restraining order for stalking Hollywood actresses and stuff...

    [link url=http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic= 6456.msg240845#msg240845
    ]http://fo rums.tigsource.com/index.php?to...[/link]

  • mingster #81 3 years ago

    Yes Tim is on the Board of directore for the IGDA
    We've been all through this before here:

    http://ww w.eurogamer.net/forum_thread_po...

  • UncleLou #82 3 years ago

    'Mirror's Spore'. That's hilarious.

    Heh. I guess EA just don't care enough. Shame.

  • kangarootoo #83 3 years ago

    A follow up.

    http://ww w.gamasutra.com/blogs/StephenJa...

  • Drone #84 3 years ago

    He is on the IGDA board of directors but for how long? - http://ko taku.com/5317360/effort-begun-t...

  • UncleLou #85 3 years ago

    The IGDA, the organisation that exists to represent and support the small developer, has Tim Langdell on its board of directors.


    He does seem to have a way to make people want to cooperate with him one way or the other. Maybe he's got quite the enchanting personality. :p

  • PearOfAnguish #86 3 years ago

    Thanks for the TIGsource link, Kangaratoo, some great stuff on there. The Edge Games web site is fantastic, not only has he nicked the Edge magazine logo but he's claiming a whole bunch of shit was produced 'under license' from Edge Games.

  • nervous_testpilot #87 3 years ago

    "born out" [sic]

  • Atropos #88 3 years ago

    I do remember The Edge, they made some good games. I can still remember the theme tune to "Garfield: Big Fat Hairy Deal". I've even completed it :-)

    Still, the guy seems like a bit of a c**k.

  • Dr_Wadd #89 3 years ago

    @KrissAkabusi I`m not sure that you can necessarily separate the man's actions from his personality, I think that the way that he has doggedly pursued other developers speaks volumes about his personality.

    @UncleLou, regarding his powers of persuasion, does anyone else automatically think of Peter Stormare's character from Prison Break whenever they see that photo of Langdell?

  • thedaveeyres #90 3 years ago

    I think the argument that he's legally in the right, and therefore his actions are ok is flawed.

    Most of us, when confronted with a moral choice, ask ourselves a simple question (in one form or another): Is this the right thing to do, or am I being a fucking twat?

    Having some moral fortitude, irrespective of whether it's ok in the eyes of the law, defines you as a human being. From the indisputable facts of the case, one thing is clear: Tim Langdell is a fucking twat with no moral compass.

    What a nice legacy to have.

  • PearOfAnguish #91 3 years ago

    All the comments saying bad stuff about Mr Langdell are getting voted down by 1 point. What's the matter Kriss...er...Tim...don't you have any friends who can help you out?

  • goz #92 3 years ago

    KrissAkabusi: Narrative is not superflous when you're asking readers to engage with a complex, convoluted story based on a trademark dispute that's potentially dry and hard work. No, narrative is the only thing that's going to get them through.

  • Eighthours #93 3 years ago

    Has anyone mentioned the saga of his Wikipedia entry yet? And how it appears that his partner was editing it for him under another name?

    As for the IGDA, their moral bankruptcy over this issue has been shameful. They've basically just washed their hands of it.

  • schnide #94 3 years ago

    I just went to Edge Games' website. It is the most piss-poor embarrassing thing I've looked at on the internet all day!

  • Ranger101 #95 3 years ago

    "There's no doubting the quality of the research. The problem lies in Simon openly writing that he's thrown objectivity and impartiality out of the window with this one. He's picked a side and that breaks a basic principle of journalism, and kind of dents this sites credibility for me. The pitfalls of trademark law for small developers is certainly a worthwhile topic to report on, but if Simon believes the current law should be changed to avoid exploitation by the likes of Langdell, then the focus should have be on that and not on Langdell's character. I feel the approach taken really diminishes the cause. "

    Langdell's character became a legitimate topic of discussion within the article as part of exploring the pitfalls of Copyright/IP/Trademark issues for a small developer, due to the reputation he has built amongst small developers and other companies.

    If in the course of research a subject consistently and regularly is confronted (in this case Langdell's character) then the journalist is ethically obliged not only to acknowledge it, but to explore it's relation and effect on the initial subject matter.

    In otherwords, because Tim Langdell is repeatedly reffered to as a contemptable character by a variety of sources, we have a right to know that this is what is fueling The Edge's numerous, high profile claims.

    Otherwise it would be like discussing North Korea without heavily featuring Kim Jong-il.
    Edited by 4 at 03/08/09 @ 16:09

  • UncleLou #96 3 years ago

    I think the argument that he's legally in the right, and therefore his actions are ok is flawed.

    Oh, absolutely. But I don't think anyone is saying that. I certainly ain't. I am finding it very unethical what he's doing. It's just that the arguments that the law must be nonsense if it allows such things is flawed as well, and many suggestions are very short-sighted. Laws are, and must be, pretty blanket and general, and that unfortunately means there's loopholes if someone knows how to and intends to play with the system, and there are no simple solutions.
    Edited by 2 at 03/08/09 @ 16:01

  • Eighthours #97 3 years ago

    Tim's delusions of grandeur on his web page are rather eye-opening ("I've made 8 gazillion games and my company's really important!";). The man's clearly got some kind of psychological condition that's making him act this way.

  • Perfecto #98 3 years ago

    I think the general concensus is that this man is an arse, even if he has the law on his side. Fingers crossed he gets what he deserves............"car accident"

  • miiiguel #99 3 years ago

    "Mirror's the new game by Edge, prepare to be amazed", it would be pathetic as-is, but when put in this context, is... sad.

    http://tigsour ce.com/pages/edge-games/
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 16:00

  • Ging #100 3 years ago

    A quick look inside a recent copy of Edge shows that they no longer have any link to Tim's company, it clearly states that Edge is a registered trademark of Future Publishing - so they might have once had some form of deal with Langdell, but they don't any more.

  • KrissAkabusi #101 3 years ago

    @pearofanguish

    I've been on this site with the username KrissAkabusi for several months now. I think it's quite clear to regular users that I am not Tim Langdell, and have no association with him whatsoever.

  • Lukus #102 3 years ago

    It seems Tim is a bit of a sex pest as well as an unscrupulous copyright bully boy:

    [link url=http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic= 6456.msg240845#msg240845
    ]http://fo rums.tigsource.com/index.php?to...[/link]

    (Credit to Whizzo in the forum thread.)

  • DanWhitehead #103 3 years ago

    A quick look inside a recent copy of Edge shows that they no longer have any link to Tim's company, it clearly states that Edge is a registered trademark of Future Publishing - so they might have once had some form of deal with Langdell, but they don't any more.

    Anybody have any idea why he's been using the exact same logo as the magazine? Is it his logo that they licensed, or is he using their logo?

  • DanWhitehead #104 3 years ago

    I've been on this site with the username KrissAkabusi for several months now. I think it's quite clear to regular users that I am not Tim Langdell, and have no association with him whatsoever.

    Aaah, but what association do you have with Kriss Akabusi?

  • KrissAkabusi #105 3 years ago

    I'll leave that to your imagination Dan.

  • KrissAkabusi #106 3 years ago

    Awooga

  • Subi #107 3 years ago

    I have two Dell Edge servers in the back room, on which I occasionally run Counterstrike games. Does that count?

  • Ranger101 #108 3 years ago

    Dan - I think only you have the necessary Journalistic powers/contacts to answer the question about Edge Magazine. A decent net search revealed nothing.

    Then again, I hear Future Publishing are cunts in their own league, so who knows how far you'd get with that.

  • Drone #109 3 years ago

    @ KrissAkabusi
    "Awooga "

    Now that really is out of order

  • BrianBeuken #110 3 years ago

    There appears to be some confusion on the issue of Soul Edge.
    Tim was the opposer (he was opposing someone else's use of the trademark) in that case and did in fact lose...The presiding officer officially scolded him on his repeated time wasting and efforts to prolong the case and awarded costs against him.
    So in fact Namco did eventually win. Its a matter of public record and a bit of simple google fu will get you there.

    The point is, Tim used his tactic of constantly stalling and wasting time to tie Namco up in legal red tape for years hoping that Namco would just cut their costs and pay something to make him go away.

    To their eternal credit they didn't they simply renamed it, and let Tim carry on with his legal nonsense until he finally lost.

    Tim hardly ever goes to court because he knows he'll lose but the law allows him to delay such decisions for a prolonged period.
    While under an C&D most of his victims have to put their projects/sales on hold and wait for the result of the case to be clarified.

    Repeated requests for delays...Tim has the worst postman in the universe because you would not believe the number of notices that he does not get from courts, and has to ask for extra time, also his Internet is utter rubbish because he's claimed he had no Internet in order to file his opposition....,all serve to prolong the time this clarification takes and allows Tim to put direct pressure on his victims..Often writing directly to the respondents and attempting to bypass the lawyers with his bullying emails.

    Some do settle, you can't blame them, deadlines and costs need to be met, and making a settlement of some kind is preferable to missing a shipping date while lawyers costs add up...and are usually gagged by the settlement order, which Tim then proudly boasts of as proof of his amiable negotiations.


    Hope that clarifies Tims legal "successes"

    The Chaos Engine fighting fund is currently standing at over €1000.00 and growing, please visit http://chaosedge.word press.com/ and review the information and if you feel you can help, a donation of any size is gratefully acknowledge and even 1 penny shows you are standing up to Tim and his methods.
    Edited by 2 at 03/08/09 @ 16:24

  • seasidebaz #111 3 years ago

    So, KrissAkabusi from here:
    "There's no doubting the quality of the research. The problem lies in Simon openly writing that he's thrown objectivity and impartiality out of the window with this one. ... I feel the approach taken really diminishes the cause. "
    And BOBF from offworld (who just happens to be Tim Langdell):
    I agree that Tigsource and others have done a good job of researching this topic, but I disagree with your summary .... So the attack on Edge/Langdell seems fundamentally unfair to me. It all looks like a deliberate smear campaign to me. There has been wide agreement Edge Games had the law on their side.

    Sounds veeeeeery similar to me....

  • PearOfAnguish #112 3 years ago

    Now now Baz, that is merely a coincidence. Kriss is not Tim, he just happens to have a similar writing style and be the one person in the world who doesn't think Langdell is a slimy, cheating little prick.

  • KrissAkabusi #113 3 years ago

    And I would've got away with it if it wasn't for you pesky seasidebazes.....



  • seasidebaz #114 3 years ago

    This has inspired me to come up with a title for my next XBL Indie Game:

    "This Game Was Titled The #### But Now It's Called The Side"

    Catchy eh?

  • SuperNashwan #115 3 years ago

    Good article, more the kind of thing i expect to read in the back pages of Private Eye, rather than EG. Keep up the good work, will follow the story with interest now.

    To KrissAkabusi - yes whilst to some the piece may read (in tone) as an attack on Langdell I would like to think most people will check a few sources and make their own mind up - I also don't believe there is such a thing as unbiased journalism, everyone writes an article for a reason, as long as you have an inkling what that reason is, you can interpret the text in light of that.

  • KrissAkabusi #116 3 years ago

    @pearofanguish

    Change your tampon.

  • spammage #117 3 years ago

    This guy has some serious neck, the fact he uses Edge magazines likeness in his formal letters, like it his own. Dying in a burning car is too good for this prick. Seriously.

  • Weezer #118 3 years ago

    Hilariously, the '756' games on The Edge Game's site refers not only to multiple skews (C64/ZX Spectrum/CPC) but also languages! So Garfield: Winter's Tail - for example gets 25 entries. Er, instead of one.

    The list also includes 'licensed' titles (presumably where another developer has licensed a name, or part of a name or the fucking letter E or something). In fact the whole site does a great job of making it look like The Edge Games - or whatever Langdell's empty husk of a company is called - makes all sorts of stuff; comics, TV shows, etc.

    It's really quite abhorrent.

  • KrissAkabusi #119 3 years ago

    @supernashwan

    There is unbiased journalism. The sad thing is, this article has both sides of the story and Langdell's/Edge's responses suitably stand up to leading the reader to the conclusion that the guy is a cock. The full slant is never needed, and for me, although obviously not a lot others here, I find it unfortunate it had to be included. What is to all intents and purposes a very good article loses some edge (no pun intended) by miring itself in bitchiness.

  • smernicki #120 3 years ago

    he sounds like a paranoid mess IMHO

  • Skurmedel #121 3 years ago

    According to his website he has "movie projects" going on too. Wonder what kind of creative input he's contributed with.

  • SuperNashwan #122 3 years ago

    @ KrissAkabusi

    I disagree with you on the bias point but that may be more a question of semantics and degree. Personally I feel the tone of the article is appropriate for a games webste when describing some (allegedly) pretty reprehensible behaviour. It might not be to everyones taste but but to me it is clearly a piece with a point to make, which it makes forcibly.

    However I do agree that it appears Mr Langdell can do quite a good hatchet job on himself without any help.

    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 16:48

  • Retroid #123 3 years ago

    Let me rephrase that: Tim Langdell gives the appearance of being an ungentlemanly person of questionable repute.

    EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE
    Edited by 2 at 03/08/09 @ 17:10

  • Ranger101 #124 3 years ago

    I notice Kriss hasn't acknowledged my response yet.

  • actionfitz #125 3 years ago

    what an unadulterated scumbag.
    I know a few on this board will play devils advocate here and try to illuminate points of copyright law...
    but it's hard for me to read this article and not be filled with utter loathing for this guy and everything he stands for.
    Regardless of who has the legal right of it, at this stage I'm personally only interested in seeing this guy crash and burn under the weight of his own bullshit.

    like Bill Hicks said:
    "Thank you very much. I'm just trying to rid the world of all these fevered egos that are tainting our collective unconscious and making us pay a higher psychic price than we imagine."

  • mingster #126 3 years ago

    cthulu steev sorry about calling you a loon.
    I retract my statement

  • Ryuken #127 3 years ago

    It's nice to see an EG article on this but I think I am not exaggerating at all when I say that some (of the links in these) comments here have been a lot more informative about "the whole truth" than anything Simon wrote up. With all due respect but going over by some e-mails, morally choosing the side of David while at the end putting up a finger that the law is still the law doesn't really come across as anything fruitful. It's practically non-information for anyone who already heard about this internet soap opera a few weeks ago.

    Some more valid research about the previous Edge trademark conflicts (and the outcome every time) would have been appropriate, just to give some actual insight how a small indie company might get past this madness (when clearly certain big companies can).

  • RedPanda #128 3 years ago

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

  • Les #129 3 years ago

    Interesting read this. Unfortunately the law by definition will allow for holes that unethical people can make use of for their benefit.

  • PearOfAnguish #130 3 years ago

    But Ti..Kriss I don't have a tampon I am a man. Your cruel comment cuts me deep. :(
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 16:58

  • kiroquai #131 3 years ago

    Must admit that I didn't know this had kicked off... makes me glad I managed to get Edge when I did. Oh, sorry... (insert 'legal' game name here).

  • KrissAkabusi #132 3 years ago

    @ryuken

    Watch out, they'll think you're Tim talking like that...

  • mkreku #133 3 years ago

    So I guess my homemade Iphone game "The Apple's Edge" is screwed, huh?

  • Eighthours #134 3 years ago

    It's nice to see an EG article on this but I think I am not exaggerating at all when I say that some (of the links in these) comments here have been a lot more informative about "the whole truth" than anything Simon wrote up.

    As an overview of the situation, though, it's good that EG had this commissioned to bring it to a wider audience. Happily, as you say, the links to more detailed analysis are available in the comments, and I'd encourage EG forumites to read them.

  • Retroid #135 3 years ago

    It's also worth pointing out that I have a few of The Edge games (Bobby Bearing is on my shelf as I type this) and there is bugger-all resemblance between Edge and BB other than the perspective. By Langdell's own method BB should carry "an homage to Marble Madness" as a subtitle.

    Oh, and The Edge's Garfield games were shit.

  • spammage #136 3 years ago

    timl@igda.org

    Some people have already sent their thoughts to the man himself........

  • Ranger101 #137 3 years ago

    Wait but if everybody does it, then the man in question has limited resources....

    This post does not condone DDOS, spamming or any other denial of service type attack. This is merely pointing out a logical conclusion that could be achieved should an unscrupolous individual on the alledged level of Tim "I've forgotton his surname".
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 17:35

  • lambtron #138 3 years ago

    I thought he had no internet access :D

  • anomagnus #139 3 years ago

    look, law aside, he can chose how he responds to each of this lawsuit cases.

    Regardless of facts, i think langdell is a wretched cunt, who lives of others work

  • byron_hinson #140 3 years ago

    Has he registered Cock yet

  • IP #141 3 years ago

    "there is bugger-all resemblance between Edge and BB other than the perspective."

    Bzzt! Even the perspective isn't the same, as Adam Banks showed on his blog. Edge offers true isometric perspective. Bobby Bearing doesn't.

    Amusingly, during my own research on this topic for a couple of articles I wrote — here and here — Papazian told me that not only do Bobby Bearing's authors not think the game is similar, but they also claim THEY (not Langdell) hold the rights to that game. Therefore, any iPhone/iPod Bobby Bearing game could end up in a legal shit-storm of its own.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 18:51

  • penhalion #142 3 years ago

    I don't think a reasonable legal team will find it too hard to pick apart his claims to the word Edge. The word existed for centuries before he used it and I know for a fact that you can't trademark actual words. This is born out by his careful choice, when replying to anyone, stating that he is defending the "The Edge" trademark. He simply can't own (either here or in America) any sort of trademark for the word Edge. It has to be in a very specific context and this is where the lawyers are going to take him apart at the seams!

  • schnide #143 3 years ago

    Congratulations to Eurogamer for bringing this to our attention - donate to the cause, do anything else you can too.

  • Retroid #144 3 years ago

    @IP: I did say resemblance, I know it's not the same :)

    I'd also heard about the Bobby Bearing authors saying they had the rights to the game which just pisses on Langdell's assertions even more.

  • byron_hinson #145 3 years ago

    @Retroid - yep the other developers did say that as well as stating they didn't agree with what he does and did.

  • thedaveeyres #146 3 years ago

    Bobby Bearing? Bobby Bollocks!

  • makeamazing #147 3 years ago

    I do agree people/companies should protect their IP, but in this case it does seem a disgrace. Some company that hasnt done anything since the days of the 8bit computer trying to sue people.. doesnt look good to me...leaves a very bad taste. Good on EG for running the story, all adds to the weight of all the other news stories... hopefully getting this Iphone game getting released.

    Seriously had anyone actually heard of these guys since today? I mean i remember the garfield game, do i remember who made it, no.

  • penhalion #148 3 years ago

    I suspect that other developers who have had dealings with Tim are waiting for the court case outcome in order to sue for any monies paid to him. If this all goes the way I think it will, then I wouldn't like to be Tim Langdell this time next year!

  • miiiguel #149 3 years ago

    Well, and for the person trying to find some reasoning in this dude's actions as way to protect his IP (Kriss doesn't count as he's clearly Tim)..., come on, seriously, isn't it obvious that he wants money, doh, pasta, greens!!! Protect his IP... lol!

  • Fnerk #150 3 years ago

    Tim Langdell is a charlatan, a coward, a trademark troll and, more than likely, a fiercely impotent little man. How's that for EDGY, Langdell?

  • Sharzam #151 3 years ago

    I would really love it for one of the truely heavy weights to come in and back the little guys. Can you just imagine the 'fun' if say microsoft or apple come up and say we really like your game and want to help you as long as we can publish it.

    Then to see in court edge with its dodgy claims aganist microsofts lawyers. I know it wont happen as the heavy weights have little intreast in this case, but would surely be funny.

  • Freek #152 3 years ago

    The thing that makes Langdell such a distatefull stane on the industrie is that he isn't defending his trademark to do anything usefull with it.
    He's not made anything worth playing, he's just sitting there leeching of other peoples succes.

  • LetsGo #153 3 years ago

    Errrm, why can't the developer just change the name of the game?

  • Freek #154 3 years ago

    That would be an admission of guilt and The Edge would then want payment for the use of it's trademark up to the point of the name change.
    One of the e-mail quotes says that.

  • LetsGo #155 3 years ago

    Well... the developers in the wrong.

    You can't use a name thats trademarked. Hasn't this guy got a lawyer? If not then he was a bit silly.

  • JJrabbit #156 3 years ago

    @LetsGo: But it wasn't trademarked. "The Edge" was trademarked and now Langdell is trying to extend that to count as "Edge". The developer was willing to change it to "Edgy", but Langdell said no and a couple days later, trademarked "Edgy". Also, branding is important, especially to indie devs who've just made a breakthrough. Changing their name could jeopardise their current marketing as well. And as mentioned in the post above, they'll still have to pay for using "Edge" up to the point they change it.

  • Spooke #157 3 years ago

    I'm not sure what the process is in discovering if a name you've selected has been trademarked but he's a very small developer and no I bet he doesn't have a lawyer to do these things, they tend to be very expensive.

    But it's still highly contentious to whether Langdell has a claim on a game that is on a platform he has never developed for, or even any game. The argument of passing off would surely only have weight if there was any confusion, which there clearly isn't, Langdell hasn't produced a decent game in over two decades.

  • LetsGo #158 3 years ago

    I still don't get it.... Sure the name matters but at the end of the day, for an indie digital game the gameplay matters more. If the games good and reviews well people will buy it. Plus the amount of marketing the devs have made through all this...

    At the end of the day, every day needs a lawyer and things like this are basic development checks. The laws the law, they should just change the name and pay what they owe.

  • JJrabbit #159 3 years ago

    I think conceding defeat on this will simply pave the way for more trademark trolls (and further activity from Langdell). It shouldn't be encouraged and, sure, the devs have gotten a lot of publicity from this, but there could be others that aren't so lucky. I think loopholes like this should be closed. I really can't see Langdell having a strong case in this, and I think he may be playing the "threaten to sue since they can't afford lawyers" card. But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really say much tbf.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 20:12

  • Gaol #160 3 years ago

    Excellent article EG/Simon Parkin.

    Any question over this guy's character are summed up by his website advertising Mirrors (a game by) Edge in an effort to provoke EA.

  • PrivateFloyd #161 3 years ago

    Cunt

    I hope he gets run over

  • Spooke #162 3 years ago

    LetsGo I completely see your point, but it's a case in principle, Langdell is doing business by threatening, intimidation and stalling people so they simply cannot afford to stand up to him, even if the case is flimsy.

    When in court he has not come out favourably so giving in to his tactics will allow him to continue. This is why we should all donate a fiver each and make sure this bully is shown up in court.

  • sarcasmoidosis #163 3 years ago

    Edgy article I'd say. But I won't since I'm already poor :)

    I have no knowledge about registered marks whatsoever, especially on international level. But copyrighting a word and then claiming it is yours sound preposterous. I mean, can I copyright "Brutal" and make a load of money?

  • LetsGo #164 3 years ago

    Well... yes... but that is how the world works I'm afraid. It's called life. Right or wrong they be the rules.

  • JJrabbit #165 3 years ago

    @sarcasmoidosis : I'll trademark Legend and, together, we'll be rich!!

  • Les #166 3 years ago

    "It has to be in a very specific context and this is where the lawyers are going to take him apart at the seams!"

    Very likely, but by then the damage has already been done. Like others have already pointed out he bets on smaller parties being scared into paying him off and with the bigger that they'll choose to pay him off instead of going into long and costly legal battles. That's the beauty of a professional legal apparatus: You can leverage it against other parties even if you don't have the slightest case... ;)

  • thedaveeyres #167 3 years ago

    Well... yes... but that is how the world works I'm afraid. It's called life. Right or wrong they be the rules.

    You'd have fitted in great in the Third Reich. :)

    Right or wrong dude - that's the fucking rule.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 20:57

  • kangarootoo #168 3 years ago

    @LetsGo

    The rules in this case are being mis-applied and exploited. And Saying "that is life" means utterly nothing in an informed debate.

    I really suggest you read up on some of the details of this situation, as you don't really seem to know what is actually going on.

  • stephen #169 3 years ago

    what an utter fucking cock.

  • sarcasmoidosis #170 3 years ago

    Oh, I got a better one actually. Hero. That should bring in some cash.

    Seriously, the laws cannot be that dumb to let a guy/company own a word. And specifically for video games? Even more.

  • LetsGo #171 3 years ago

    But isn't it like saying "I want to release a game called Eidos, why can't I do that?".

    Or am I way off the mark?

  • vMark #172 3 years ago

    Great story. This is why I read Eurogamer.

  • miiiguel #173 3 years ago

    @ LetsGo : did you read the article? Similar examples are given, though, quite rightly mentioned Edge is not a made up word as Eidos is.

  • Farzlepot #174 3 years ago

    I'm amazed he hasn't sued Pizza Hut for trademark infringement yet, for there is a very real risk that his company could be mistaken for a pizza.

    Of the pavement variety.

  • smoothpete #175 3 years ago

    Tim Langdell can fucking die.

  • napalm68 #176 3 years ago

    Jeses. They should have just changed the frigging name of the game to "Precipice" or something and be done with it...This sort of fighting only makes lawyers rich

  • tossrStu #177 3 years ago

    It's interesting to note that one of the early Softek games, Ostron, is actually a Joust clone which was originally released as Joust before it was re-released under the new name. (Possibly because it was an unlicensed clone?)

    In fact, a number of Softek games appear to be versions of coin-ops: Megapede and Millipede (Centipede), Meteoroids (Asteroids), Repulsar (Missile Command) and Starblitz (Defender).

    All of these games, incidentally, appear in the list of games on the Edge website so I guess they're taking responsibility for these (unauthorised, one assumes) home conversions?

  • JJrabbit #178 3 years ago

    @napalm68 : Your type of thinking makes the poor, poorer.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/09 @ 22:39

  • DanielZKlein #179 3 years ago

    Great article! I hadn't heard of this at all before. This was a great summary of a rather fucked up situation delivered in great writing that, while clearly biased, shows so much sympathy for the indie guys that it's just impossible not to become emotionally involved.

    If anyone still does not understand why our trademark/copyright system needs to be scrapped and rewritten from scratch, let them read this article.

  • Optimaximal #180 3 years ago

    The sad thing is, when this guy is finally run down by a dust cart (intentionally or not) his wasted trademarks will still take 100 years (or however long it takes) too expire...

  • Fleeby #181 3 years ago

    It's weird that on the grubby little fucktard's website, it says that the movie The Edge was licensed out to 20th Century Fox by him – EDGE. Looks like the wily old cunt-krieg hasn't simply been satisfied with hoovering up money from the videogame industry but also the movie industry?!? I can't imagine though Murdoch's lawyers (and David Mamet) sitting down and 'hammering out' a license with this cockstool...

    PS Quietly gutted to read that he had anything to do with Fairlight on the Spectrum... it's soiled the game's memory...

    PPS Just checked and the author of Fairlight got screwed by him as well according to an interview...
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/09 @ 17:11

  • SG #182 3 years ago

    http://ww w.gamefaqs.com/search/index.htm...

  • MrE26 #183 3 years ago

    Tim Langdell is a slimy, parasitic little cunt. What a shameless fucking wanker.

  • EggyDeth #184 3 years ago

    It's obvious that "Edge", "The Edge", or whatever Tim Langdell's company is called has not been a going concern for many years - the Bobby Bearing release seems like more of an attempt to keep the trademark alive than anything else.

    Can't WAIT for the test case!

  • ricpamiwor #185 3 years ago

    The hilarious fact is that Langdell's company is actually difficult to find in a Google search but he seems very sure that they're famous! I'd not heard of this until I read this article and I certainly haven't heard of that stupid bobby ball-bag game he was talking about too!!

  • napalm68 #186 3 years ago

    JJrabbit - no my thinking doesn't make the poor poorer. Their thinking did. Both parties lost money. Lawyers won. This kind of stupidity is a loose loose situation for everyone other than lawyers

  • DaemonSpawn #187 3 years ago

    Such suit-happy fuckers make my knuckles itchy. Really, when these people use so called "law" to bully everyone with just a trace amounts of money the only viable way to react is to go and beat them properly. I guess this Langdell's not so good in unarmed combat as in court fucking - and such "interaction" will probably make him think about how his victims feel when they can't protect themselves from copyright rape.

    If this guy lived in my country, he'd been long dead 'cause most "businessmen" here prefer out-of-court settlement and hell that doesn't mean giving the bastard money.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/09 @ 01:06

  • rprince #188 3 years ago

    Can we as an industry just agree to never make another game with the word "Edge" in the name, at least until this guy shuffles off this mortal coil? It can't be that hard to think of better words.

    It's a shame the legal process is such a gamble. That it might get kicked out of court, but you're not sure until you risk money and go to court is ridiculous.

  • Sunyavadin #189 3 years ago

    @UncleLou: Ah, fair enough. I was under the impression that the quoted person would keep trademarks but lax infringment laws and make a significant distinction between a trademarked madeup word and a trademarked real word.

    Which if Unclelou had paid attention to more than one paragraph of what I'd written, you would see is EXACTLY what I said. You should be able to trademark logos USING a certain word (eg: the Halo logo, or the Doom logo), or made up/compound words (Microsoft, Eurogamer), but not to directly trademark anything that's been in the dictionary for a considerable period before you applied for the trademark. As I said, the law allowing that sort of thing is outdated. It's designed for a much smaller world where a small business in one market was very unlikely to butt heads with a large business in another. The internet has gotten rid of those boundaries.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/09 @ 02:08

  • Nephirion #190 3 years ago

    I was hardly on the " Edge" of my seat reading this article * Yawn

  • speedofthepuma #191 3 years ago

    What an interesting read. Certainly the most entertaining thing I have ever read on the front page. Congratulations.

  • ravnaz #192 3 years ago

    "Timothy R. Langdell had a restraining order taken out against him by Alexandra Jago, a BAFTA-LA member whose website was designed by The Edge Studios, part of Langdell's "brand empire". He's been trying to get the records sealed and expunged ever since. BAFTA-LA implimented a rule allowing them to boot out people with criminal records or restraining orders the following year and I can't find any current references to him being a BAFTA-LA member. They must've created a rule just to kick him out."

    http://ww w.rllmukforum.com/index.php?sho...

  • kangarootoo #193 3 years ago

    @LetsGo

    Well ok, kudos for asking.

    Eidos is a bad example, as Eidos isn't a real word. AND it is a single word, which your example reproduces exactly.

    A better example is that you own a company called "The Force", and then I release a game called "Force", or "Forceful" or "Force for Good"... and then you try and sue me.


    @napalm68

    WHAT do you suggest as an alternative? You must have an alternative, right?

    Someone effectively closes down your company by burying in highly suspect legal proceedings and threats. And you are advocating simply doing nothing, because to do ANYTHING would make solicitors and barristers rich? Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

  • seasidebaz #194 3 years ago

    The sad thing is, when this guy is finally run down by a dust cart (intentionally or not) his wasted trademarks will still take 100 years (or however long it takes) too expire...

    Unless someone can prove that he's not actively involved in the production of video games, at which point the court seize his trademark apparently. Don't know how it works, I read it somewhere. The courts don't like people using a trademark to extort money.

  • spammage #195 3 years ago

    http://ww w.facebook.com/find-friends/?ex...

  • JJrabbit #196 3 years ago

    @napalm68 :But by paying Langdell, the developers have lost and Langdell has won. I'd rather lawyers get paid than see Langdell win. If we squash facetious cases such as this now, then there'll be less of them in the future. I agree it was their (Langdell's) thinking that make the poor poorer, but you supported that stance and therefore you fall in the category of condoning that behaviour. It's not as simple as "change the name" as The Edge still want compensation for use of the name up to that point.

  • brokenkey #197 3 years ago

    I'm a great admirer of Alex Chapman's work.

  • Sunyavadin #198 3 years ago

    "If we squash facetious cases such as this now, then there'll be less of them in the future. I agree it was their (Langdell's) thinking that make the poor poorer, but you supported that stance and therefore you fall in the category of condoning that behaviour. It's not as simple as "change the name" as The Edge still want compensation for use of the name up to that point."

    EXACTLY. By changing the name you legitimise their claim to it, and so justify their claim to your money. And it sets more dangerous precedent.

  • schnide #199 3 years ago

    A petition to the IGDA to remove him:

    http://ww w.ipetitions.com/petition/getla...

  • IP #200 3 years ago

    Some people here are misunderstanding what the law is supposed to do regarding protection of marks. Langdell's assertions are borderline - they are not rock-solid. The law exists to stop confusion within an industry and passing off. In order for that to happen, de-facto confusion must be proved, and the mark must be active.

    In the case of a game, EA would have a point if someone produced a game called 'Electronic Arts - the EA Mobile Game', since EA's a big and current player. Edge? Not so much. Before all this kicked off, I doubt many people had heard of Edge Games, since it barely produces anything bar vapourware. Even those who were active gamers in the 1980s had largely forgotten about the company. Langell's other hook is the games being superficially similar, and he's using this to warp an argument that gamers are buying Edge because it reminds them of Edge Games' Bobby Bearing. It's a bizarre argument, but the sort of thing he might be able to get going in court, at least to confuse proceedings.

    Also, take a lot of what you see on his website with a huge pinch of salt. As others have shown elsewhere, he has an interesting way with words, trying to make his achievements greater. The most obvious is his usage of 'spawned', which he uses to try and say he had active involvement in a product, whereas in fact he essentially convinced or 'forced' a company to licence his mark.

  • Sunyavadin #201 3 years ago

    Which is why, if they stay the course and refuse to back down, likely this will be thrown out. And with good reason. For starters I believe it's been shown Edge do not own the rights to that game any more. Second, that game itself was a clone of another, better known game. And thirdly - they had no idea when making the game that Edge even existed, as with most of the customer base.

    The problem is, every time someone DOES back down it sets precedent. Which further legitimises future claims, making exceedingly tenuous ones such as this more likely to succeed.

  • IP #202 3 years ago

    The problem is that no-one's going to win this one. I suspect in the long run, it'll be another one of Langdell's cases that's thrown out 'with prejudice'. However, that could feasibly take many months (potentially years), which could royally screw up Mobigame. Still, maybe this debacle has at least halted any potential action against Nalin Sharma's Killer Edge Racing, which would presumably have been the next game attacked.

  • spammage #203 3 years ago

    Explains why Langdell cuntybollocks has "Edge Racing" emblazened upon his "website"

    This issue must have enough momentum now for someone to pick up the legal mantle?

  • FirewalkR #204 3 years ago

    Their site is hilarious, the EDGE magazine logo, poor design, the Mirrors thing is just like the cherry on top... of quite the shitcake.
    Apple should have supported Mobigame just out of fucking principle.

  • Nithron #205 3 years ago

    Apple are a company. They don't have principles.

  • chicknstu #206 3 years ago

    Probably going to get assassinated for this... but what's the big deal with changing the name of the game? The Developer will certainally make more money than not having it up for sale at all!

    Not that I agree with sueing people for using specific English words in their game titles either!

  • Fleeby #207 3 years ago

    Chicknstu

    My understanding is even if they had changed the name, they would have been required to pay quarter of their profits to fucktard up to the date of the name change.

  • Sunyavadin #208 3 years ago

    "My understanding is even if they had changed the name, they would have been required to pay quarter of their profits to fucktard up to the date of the name change."

    Indeed, changing the name suggests that they ADMIT that the name belongs to Langdell. Thus essentially confessing to owing him money. Hence why it'd be a bad idea to.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/09 @ 14:12

  • kangarootoo #209 3 years ago

    @chicknstu

    Oooohh for f*cks sake dude. I know the thread is pretty long now, but the information you seek is in the cocking article.

    Is reading articles really given such low importance by visitos to a website that is mostly text?

    If they change the name, it means they are admitting the prior use of the name was wrong. And they will therefore have to turn over profits from that prior time.

    Can the author os the article maybe add a little info box at the top titled "stuff you should know, in case you get bored before you have read all the words".

    Sorry dude. I'm being a bit shit to you. If you weren't the 8th person to ask that question, I would probably be much politer :)

  • geeza2020 #210 3 years ago

    someone needs to break Tim Langdell's little cockroach legs and stuff them up his arse. And then poke out his eyes, slice out his tongue and cut off his hands. That way we will all be protected from this utter disgrace of a human being forever.

  • Sunyavadin #211 3 years ago

    Shows how well known they are, a search on google for their website gave me in order:

    Edge Foundation inc ([link url=http://www.edge.org)]http://www.edge.org)[/link] an offshoot of The Reality Club
    Edge vocational qualifications ([link url=http://www.edge.co.uk)]http://www.edge.co.uk)[/li nk] an independent educational foundation
    The Edge FM ([link url=http://www.theedge.co.nz)]http://www.theedge.co.nz)[/link] a New Zealand radio station
    Edge magazine ([link url=http://www.edge-online.com)]http://www.edge-online.co m)[/link] who as we know were shafted by Langdell
    Edge of Existence ([link url=http://www.edgeofexistence.org)]http://www.edgeofexis tence.org)[/link] a site charting endangered species
    Wotton Under Edge (([link url=http://wotton-under-edge.com)]http://wotton-under-edg e.com)[/link] the website of a delightful looking town
    The Edge of Love ([link url=http://www.theedgeoflove.co.uk)]http://www.theedgeofl ove.co.uk)[/link] a film starring Cillian Murphy
    Festival at the Edge ([link url=http://www.festivalattheedge.org)]http://www.festival attheedge.org)[/link] a storytelling festival
    Edge Products ([link url=http://www.edgeproducts.com)]http://www.edgeproducts. com)[/link] car products
    The Edge ([link url=http://www.the-edge.co.nz)]http://www.the-edge.co.nz< /a>)[/link] New Zealand's premiere performing arts venue, apparently

    And no sign of Langdell's site AT ALL on the first page of results. All of which look VASTLY better than anything his company do. I wonder how many of them he's tried to sue so far.
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/09 @ 14:28

  • brokenkey #212 3 years ago

    They should re-release the game as as sequel, and call it "Wedge".

  • tinyspark #213 3 years ago

    This must be the most instances of the word 'cunt' i've seen on the comments, and with good reason....What an absolute cunt that man is.

  • darkmorgado #214 3 years ago

    Lol, EDGE Games is so famous that there is currently a discussion about whether or not it is even relevant enough to have a page on Wikipedia:

    [link url=http://e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EDGE_Games
    ]http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EDGE_G...[/link]

    Yeah, that's a really valuable brand name.

  • Grayvern #215 3 years ago

    I doubt he'll ever give up, too many companies have given in, and he probably believes his own lies he's been defrauding people so long.

    I someone at a big company like sony had, had the wherewithal to realise the danger and precedent that Langdells continuing actions set he would have been crushed years ago. It's the attitude that it's only the lawyers that get richer that led to the persecution of this small company in the first place.

  • Les #216 3 years ago

    "If they change the name, it means they are admitting the prior use of the name was wrong. And they will therefore have to turn over profits from that prior time."

    Don't agree. Look at the Namco case. They changed the name of their game from Soul Edge to Soul Blade and still won the case against Langdell.

    It's one of the many factors that a judge would factor into his decision and renaming might not benefit their case but it surely won't ruin it. Legal disputes don't lend themselves well for quick conclusions... ;)

  • tinyspark #217 3 years ago

    seems he sometimes goes by the name of Dr. Tim Langdell:

    [link url=http://www.worl dofspectrum.org/showmag.cgi?mag=YourSinclair/Issue42/Pages/Y ourSinclair4200035.jpg
    ]http://ww w.worldofspectrum.org/showmag.c...[/link]

    Doctor of what i wonder?

  • darkmorgado #218 3 years ago

    Has anyone informed Dell that his surname might infringe on their trademark?

  • PermiaN #219 3 years ago

    I have e-mailed Tim Langdell and actually received a reply, he said the following...

    "Thank you for writing me. I would strongly advise against believe the nonsense written in forums and on blogs.

    Tim"

    I did ask about the Mobigames incident in my reply but alas he hasn't seen fit to reply to this...

  • darkmorgado #220 3 years ago

    PermiaN, I think that can be safely translated into: "I don't like how I have finally been exposed and am receiving a backlash because of it"

  • BrianBeuken #221 3 years ago

    @Les
    yes Namco took him on and won, but the point is the case took years to settle, Namco "could" have had to have paid out a lot of money had they lost. In truth there was little chance of that but not all things in law are clear cut as we know.

    Namco choose to fight on the advice of lawyers that there was little danger. Changing the name in their case was a simple thing and meant they could publish their game and avoid the C&D, then fight on the costs issue as a separate matter. If they lost at least they could deal with that, Mobigame are not so well off and loss of income and threats of losing large sums of money forced them to step back and review their options.

    MobiGame did try to rename the game..as has been pointed out, to Edgy..unfortunately they mentioned this to Tim who applied for a trademark on that word the next day. Which scuppered Mobigames plans and left them somewhat dejected.


    Edited by 1 at 04/08/09 @ 16:05

  • Les #222 3 years ago

    @BrianBeuken
    "yes Namco took him on and won, but the point is the case took years to settle, Namco "could" have had to have paid out a lot of money had they lost."

    True, I just wanted to point out that renaming their game isn't equal per se to admitting they were wrong in the first place from a legal POV.

    Of course Namco as a big player is better equipped to battle the bullying from Langdell and I don't blame Mobistar at all for removing their game from the AppStore and reviewing their options before acting.

  • PeterA #223 3 years ago

    The website seems to suggest that they made hardware jointly with Diamond which "enabled PCs to play Sega Saturn titles". Does anyone remember this? I could only find reference elsewhere that you could use Sega Saturn controllers.

  • darkmorgado #224 3 years ago

    Just wondering, but if his website uses the same font as Edge magazine, surely that could be seen as Langdell implying some sort of business relationship/ association with Edge Magazine that does not, in reality, exist? Would there be any legal action that could be used against him for it? Surely something like misrepresentation?

  • JJrabbit #225 3 years ago

    @darkmorgado : I may be wrong here, but I think I read someone in the comments section say something about Edge magazine paying a license to this guy. I'm guessing that permission to use the font is also part of the agreement (just to be able to ride on the back of the success of the magazine). But, as I say, I may have misread that part.

  • Harmonica #226 3 years ago

    EA or any of the big publishers could squash him. I am surprised that Future paid up to him.

    I reckon a decent IP lawyer could take him out.

    Ironically, Bobby Bearing looks like a massive rip off of Marble Madness.

  • Les #227 3 years ago

    "'m guessing that permission to use the font is also part of the agreement (just to be able to ride on the back of the success of the magazine)."

    Or it might be that Edge, being a UK magazine, didn't register their logo in the US fast enough and Tim jumped on the chance...
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/09 @ 18:24

  • Trikk #228 3 years ago

    Quick, someone make a game called Apple Sun Edge.

  • ravnaz #229 3 years ago

    The actions of IGDA board member Tim Langdell since his election in March 2009 have raised questions regarding his suitability as our elected representative. As you no doubt know, the IGDA's mission is: To advance the careers and enhance the lives of game developers by connecting members with their peers, promoting professional development, and advocating on issues that affect the developer community.

    Tim Langdell's company, Edge Games, has trademarked the word "edge" and they leverage this trademark against any media that contains this word--threatening legal action should their target not enter into a licensing arrangement with the studio. Such targets have included David Mamet's film The Edge, Marvel's comic book Edge, EA's Mirror's Edge, and Namco's Soul Edge, which was released as Soul Blade and later, Soulcalibur in the west as a direct result of Edge Games' actions. Most recently their actions have resulted in the removal of the indie game hit, Edge, from the iPhone app store.

    Meanwhile, Edge Games has not been associated with the direct production of an original video game in the last fifteen years.

    After his election to the IGDA board, in a lawsuit against Cybernet regarding Edge of Extinction, Tim Langdell presented himself to the court like this: "Dr. Tim Langdell is considered to be a pioneer in the field of computer gaming and is widely publicized on the Internet and has been engaged as a legal expert in the field of computer gamin." He adds "He presently serves on the Board of Directors of the International Game Developers Association, which is the largest game association worldwide".
    Many of us believe that this is a gross misrepresentation and feel that Tim Langdell is able to use his position on the board of the IGDA to work directly against the mission of the organization. As IGDA members with voting rights, it is our responsibility to elect a board that we can trust to represent us. But no election system is perfect and sometimes corrections need to be made.

    We are asking that you take some time to consider this issue, do a little research online, make up your mind how you feel about it, and take action.

    Under the IGDA bylaws, we are able to call for a special meeting of the membership to vote on the removal of Tim Langdell from the board of directors. In order to do this, we need 10% of the membership to request the board call the special meeting. We are hosting a petition to this effect here: [link url=http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=68SO...b2Zw7_2 fA_3d_3d
    ]http://ww w.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=68...[/link]

    Thank you for your consideration,
    Concerned Members of the IGDA

    -----------------------------------------

    You can reply to Concerned Members of the IGDA at concerned_members_of_the _igda@igda.org.

  • Redeye #230 3 years ago

    ravnaz: I would happily sign said survey, and even signed up to the site to do so; unfortunately, the link pinged me straight to the homepage, and as such I've no idea where to go from there. If you could let us know what the survey's name is, I dare say there'd be quite a few here who would happily hunt it down in order to assist removing this individual from the board.

  • tossrStu #231 3 years ago

    @tinyspark: He has a PhD in Child Psychology: http://z.pe/gbQ

  • Spiral #232 3 years ago

    Survey.
    Get your IGDA Member Number here.
    Blog Post on it.

  • tinyspark #233 3 years ago

    @tossrStu
    Well thank fuck he doesn't work as a child psychologist, imagine that fuck meddling with the minds of kids.

  • DuX1112 #234 3 years ago

    Well I suggest all of you supporting Mobigames (OR just repelled by Landell's actions), would join the appropriate group on Facebook:
    [link url=http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=100713289870& ref=search
    ]http://ww w.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10...[/link]

    And spread the word! =)
    Edited by 1 at 05/08/09 @ 04:16

  • MrScruffier #235 3 years ago

    It'd be interesting to do an experiment: Who here had heard of Edge games, or whatever it's called before reading this article, and what does the brand mean to you?

    Edit: I would imagine KrisAkkabusi will have some glowing praise, I would take the accusations that he is Tim Langdell posing under another name into account
    Edited by 1 at 05/08/09 @ 10:52

  • KrissAkabusi #236 3 years ago

    MrScruffier,

    Go check my post history on this site and if you still believe I'm Tim Langdell then you are a fucking idiot.

  • darkmorgado #237 3 years ago

    Had never heard of Tim Langdell or Edge Games at all before reading this article, and I have been an avid gamer for nearly 20 years of my life. Quite frankly, after reading this article and doing my own research, I can see no redeeming qualities or moral defense in his favour. He has very clearly made a career out of taking legal action against others while producing nothing of his own. His company is very clearly a front set up merely to extend his Trademark, and is amateurly designed at best, with the constant blatant use of others' names or logos when he can no longer get money out of them.
    The fact that he took out a trademark on a name for a game that had been very publicly developed for over two years speaks volumes (and I hope they are aware and are already taking legal advice as he is obviously targeting them next). The guy has no interest whatsoever in the game industry other than trying to exploit it for every penny he can.

  • darkmorgado #238 3 years ago

    It's rather ironic that he is a doctor of child psychology, as he is clearly in need of mental help and he acts like a spoiled brat.

  • darkmorgado #239 3 years ago

    @KrisAkabusi,
    fuck off Tim.

  • KrissAkabusi #240 3 years ago

    @darkmoron
    Nah, fuck fucking you.

  • darkmorgado #241 3 years ago

    With a tested IQ of 149, I hardly qualify as a moron.
    What's your excuse Tim?
    Go and sue U2 or something.

  • MrScruffier #242 3 years ago

    @KrisAkka

    No offence, Kris. I'm just genuinely intersted in the result, so it's worth noting that the accusation has been made. If you're not him, I can understand that it's annoying to be accused as such :)

  • b1000 #243 3 years ago

    The deeper I delve into this, the more it blows my mind - the guy is a sociopath and clearly disturbed. And I can't believe no one's mentioned his upcoming "groundbreaking project" Teenage Wasteland yet:

    Teenage Wasteland is an action game that has everyone over the age of thirty dead due a solar flare and the beaches of California become lawless and all the surviving youths form tribes of martial artists, break dancers and skateboarders.

    I almost pissed myself...

  • butler` #244 3 years ago

    lol if future pay this goon

    and langdell

  • MrE26 #245 3 years ago

    I honestly don't understand this guy at all. He's way past it as a games developer, having released nothing of note since the 90s, the vast majority of gamers have no idea who he is, yet his hilarious website pimps him out as being involved in games, comics & movies, purely because he threatens people wth legal action for using 'his' word. His vapourware 'projects in development' are utterly fucking laughable, he got his wife to write his Wikipedia page, proclaiming him as one of the founders of the industry, who then pissed & moaned when it was deleted for being complete horseshit.

    I mean, who is he trying to kid?

    He's nothing more than a bottom-feeding leech, trying to syphon money from the earnings of far more talented & successful people than he is, & he & his 'company' should be fired into the sun.

  • ChevEdwards #246 3 years ago

    What an absolutely incredibly engaging and well written article. A huge well done to the author!

  • Sunyavadin #247 3 years ago

    For a further example of why THESE LAWS ARE IDIOTIC AND SHOULD BOW TO COMMON SENSE

    [link url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Epinephrine#The_na me_issue
    ]http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Epinep...[/link]

    A company in one country trademarks a name which is almost identical to THE SCIENTIFIC NAME FOR A NEUROTRANSMITTER - and as a result, the entire medical community of that one country is forced to use a name which makes no sense for said neurotransmitter.

  • KrissAkabusi #248 3 years ago

    @MrScruffier

    I'd never heard of the guy, his company, or any of his games until this article. Been gaming for 20 plus years. I've no involvement with the games industry other than being a consumer. Hope that helps your survey.

  • shea.max #249 3 years ago

    "Been gaming for 20 plus years. I've no involvement with the games industry other than being a consumer."

    Are you sure you're not Tim? ;-) I don't think Landell's had more than a nodding acquaintance with the games industry either.

  • Gecks #250 3 years ago

    anyone who thinks krissakabusi is genuinely tim langdell - you are a bit simple.

    the article does (to me) come across like a character assassination, and a bit tabloidy, but it couldn't happen to a more disagreeable fellow, so there you go.
    Edited by 1 at 07/08/09 @ 10:11

  • KrissAkabusi #251 3 years ago

    Thanks Gecks, good to see there are still intelligent posters on here. I'd imagine some of the latter references were WUMs. But it is worrying that there is a moron element here who misconstrued criticism of the journalism as a defense of Langdell, nonetheless by the man himself.

  • Tonka #252 3 years ago

    Great read!

  • Tardie #253 3 years ago

    A very interesting read, which brought back memories of working with Tim & Cheri Langdell at The Edge.

  • goz #254 3 years ago

    Which memories in particular Tardie?

  • Tardie #255 3 years ago

    How much fun we had converting Alien Syndrome, Soldier of Light & Darius to the Atari ST & Amiga. I think it took like 6 weeks to convert Syndrome.

    Also Alien Syndrome was a licensed game from SEGA, the IP is not owned by The Edge.

    I wish Mobigame every success and look forward to playing the game!
    Edited by 6 at 26/08/09 @ 15:13

  • m0thr4 #256 3 years ago

    AFAIK edge magazine -did- have to license it from him, in the early days. i think it did used to have some sort of written legal bumpf to that effect. not sure if it is anymore though..

    This is what the Wikipedia article on Edge Games would have you believe, but I've checked more than 10 issue of Edge at random from my collection of every single issue and I can't find any mention of it.

    From issue 183 onwards, there is a mention in the Editorial section that says Edge is a registered trademark of Future Publishing, so what ever hold that little turd might have had over them has certainly vanished.

  • Sar #257 3 years ago

    I've played this before it got pulled from the App Store, and it was a good wee game.

    Pretty much yet another Marble Madness clone. A game which Tim seems to have conveniently forgotten about when talking about "Bobby Bearing" - a game, which as a gamer for 29 years I've never ever heard of.

    I have of course heard of his company, and remember playing a few of their games on the Speccy back in the day. But I, like a lot of other people it seems thought it had gone under like a lot of the old game developers from the early 80's.

    It seems trolling latent trademarks is far easier work than actually developing software.

    And this trademark shenanigans, quite frankly is absolutely ridiculous - suing anyone the uses the word edge in any media?

    Edge magazine is of course using his trademark, hell they even use the same logo as Edge Software. But this particular case, in addition to all the other hotly pursued trademark "infringements" completely gives the lie to "Dr" Tim's statement that he isn't a trademark troll.

    He's a lying, reprehensible scumbag. One which the IGDA will be well shot of.

    As for Mobigames, I'd recommend calling the game something different and re-releasing it. I know I recognise apps on the App Store more by the icon they use before I see the name.
    Edited by 2 at 08/08/09 @ 11:08

  • Ergates_Antius #258 3 years ago

    1) KrisAkabusi is plainly not Tim Langdale or in anyway associated with him. There is no evidence to support the accusation. KrisAkabusi hasn't actually said anything in support of TL, or Edge - he has just been critical of the article, which isn't the same thing. It was mildly amusing to start with, but now it's getting silly and nasty.


    2) Surely the simplest and most effective way of stopping this Langdell parasite is for someone to kill him. Thousands of people die every day, and if the fact that Tim Langdell hasn't been one of them yet isn't proof of the non-existance of God then I don't know what is.

  • smelly #259 3 years ago

    @sar : "As for Mobigames, I'd recommend calling the game something different and re-releasing it. I know I recognise apps on the App Store more by the icon they use before I see the name."


    According to the story - they cant do that. Releasing under a new name would allegidly require back pay to "the" edge.

  • Balboa #260 3 years ago

    And so, five days later, Langdell threatens to sue us.

    Must have hit a nerve.

  • Sar #261 3 years ago

    Sue for what exactly?

    Jesus. He's getting to be like Jack Thompson.

  • IP #262 3 years ago

    "Edge magazine is of course using his trademark, hell they even use the same logo as Edge Software."

    @Sar - I'm sure you meant "Edge Games even uses the same logo as Edge magazine". Future's mag did NOT copy the Edge Games logo (which looked nothing like it currently does when Edge first appeared).

    As for Langdell suing, I'd love to know on what grounds. He would have to prove defamation or some other reasoning. In reality - even on the IGDA forum - he never responds to queries about the most basic facts, such as a list of games Edge has released over the past five years or so (including proof, not just that bullshit list on the Edge website).

  • Sar #263 3 years ago

    If that's the case, maybe it's a reciprocal thing - we'll let you use the name if we can use your logo sort of deal.

    Dunno, but he's still an asshole.
    Edited by 1 at 09/08/09 @ 11:56

  • Bloodhunter #264 3 years ago

    Balboa - I saw that on RPS too

    Its not the fact that hes going after them that annoys me, its his false claims of being "famous" and other things

  • KrissAkabusi #265 3 years ago

    @IP

    "As for Langdell suing, I'd love to know on what grounds. He would have to prove defamation or some other reasoning."

    If it is a defamation action, the onus of proof would be on eurogamer entirely.

  • byron_hinson #266 3 years ago

    Guess the article tipped him over the ****

    Removed for copyright and trademark reasons
    Edited by 1 at 09/08/09 @ 15:56

  • rotmm #267 3 years ago

    @byron,

    Lol @ your edit, even though it was a pre-planned edit ;)

  • IP #268 3 years ago

    "If it is a defamation action, the onus of proof would be on eurogamer entirely."

    Er, no it wouldn't, unless you live in a country with an extreme and bizarre legal system. If Langdell sued EG and said "x and y are defamatory comments", he would also have to back that up. Given that Langdell won't even answer the most basic of questions on the IGDA forum, that seems unlikely to happen. Also, given that what he's said in various places flatly contradicts the communications he made with Mobigame, and also the actions of his that are a matter of public record, I can't imagine EG will be pooing its pants in fear.
    Edited by 1 at 09/08/09 @ 23:44

  • KrissAkabusi #269 3 years ago

    @IP

    You really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

  • IP #270 3 years ago

    You can't just sue someone for defamation, sit back and say "they have to prove that they didn't defame me". You have to say why, and you have to provide some evidence that they were talking shit.

  • schnide #271 3 years ago

    Kriss, you should probably backup what you're saying with fact then rather than just make wild claims.

    Sounds like someone else I've read about ;)

  • Les #272 3 years ago

    "You can't just sue someone for defamation, sit back and say "they have to prove that they didn't defame me". You have to say why, and you have to provide some evidence that they were talking shit."

    It's a bit more complicated. There can be an argument about whether something is actually defamatory (that would be something Tim has to prove in this case). But if Tim claims that something is defamatory (and it is clear that the 'alleged' facts have a negative impact on his reputation), it is on the other party to prove that it is in fact not defamatory but true. And in general this is where the meat of the legal arguments will focus on.

    This is fully in line with one of the core principles behind the (Western) legal system: The accuser has to prove the facts. The one that is defaming is the one that originated the dispute (brought harmful information in the open) and has to prove that it did so justly (in most cases by proving it is true).

  • IP #273 3 years ago

    Langdell responds in full: [link url=http: //www.the--edge.com/edgegames/mobigame.htm
    ]http://ww w.the--edge.com/edgegames/mobig...[/link]

    Some interesting stuff in there, although I was particularly drawn to point 6.

    "Bobby Bearing in particular has been one of the most consistent selling games on mobile platforms over the past five years (which is why we suspect Mobigame chose this game to base their game on)."

    If Langdell wants to present himself in a good light, he really needs to stick to the truth and not disinformation. Bobby Bearing and Edge aren't particularly similar. Bobby Bearing is essentially a Spindizzy rip-off, a cross between Marble Madness and an old Ultimate game. Edge is superficially similar, but plays in a very different way, and even the projection is NOT THE SAME. This is like if Sega accused Sony's Gran Turismo of being a rip-off of OutRun ('cause it has cars in), ignoring the fact that they aren't that similar and OutRun wasn't the first game of that type anyway. ARGH!

    Also, I'd love to hear some more from Bobby Bearing's devs, who claim they own the IP rights to the game, not Edge Games (although, regardless of the 'truth' in this matter, I suspect that's something Edge Games could argue against anyway, due to how ropey 1980s contracts were—after all, there are a lot of companies out there trading on old 8-bit games, despite not having entirely robust ownership claims; also, it's quite possible the devs are mistaken in this understanding—for the record, I'm not suggesting Edge Games is acting illegally regarding IP ownership of the game).


    EDIT: Point 2 is also interesting:

    In Langell's letter:

    "Our company, EDGE, is the oldest videogame company (established 1979) and is widely known not only for its games, but also for our licensed products and those of our partners, such as EDGE Magazine, EDGE game PCs, EDGE controllers, and so forth."

    On this website:

    "We did not mean to imply Future Publishing, publishers of Edge Magazine, are our "partners" - for the record, they are not."
    Edited by 1 at 11/08/09 @ 09:51

  • footle #274 3 years ago

    Which is hilarious, because Edge (the magazine) is far more widely known with respect to videogames than Edge (the publishers of Bobby Bearing).

    Which bit of "did not mean to imply" does "our partners, such as Edge magazine" cover?
    Edited by 1 at 11/08/09 @ 10:01

  • IP #275 3 years ago

    "Which bit of "did not mean to imply" does "our partners, such as Edge magazine" cover?"

    Apparently, the bit where he stated Edge magazine was, er, one of Edge's partners. Glad that's all clear, then! Actually, to be fair the full sentence is:

    "Our company, EDGE, is the oldest videogame company (established 1979) and is widely known not only for its games, but also for our licensed products and those of our partners, such as EDGE Magazine, EDGE game PCs, EDGE controllers, and so forth."

    There are only three possible things that sentence can mean regarding Edge magazine:

    1. Edge Games is a partner of Edge magazine (refuted in Langdell's letter).
    2. Edge magazine is a 'licensed product' of Edge Games (which isn't true).
    3. Langdell is talking about some other 'Edge magazine' that's nothing to do with Future.

    Also: oldest videogame company? Really? **CITATION NEEDED**

  • Ergates_Antius #276 3 years ago

    @IP "If Langdell wants to present himself in a good light, he really needs to stick to the truth"
    Unfortunately this is something he seems incapable of. He lies so much I'm not sure he even knows what the truth is anymore.

  • KrissAkabusi #277 3 years ago

    @IP

    It is crystal clear you don't have a clue what you are talking about. It isn't rocket science to google a topic before you start discussing it. I'm not going to waste my time educating you. It's all there if you go looking for it.

  • djcool3005 #278 3 years ago

    Lol is he going to sue the English Language for using the word Edge?

  • IP #279 3 years ago

    Damn - KrissAkabusi is right. I don't know what I'm talking about. Clearly, Tim Langdell is TOTALLY IN THE RIGHT WITH EVERYTHING, EVER, the Future/Edge thing wasn't remotely confusing in his recent letter, his 'defamation' claim against Eurogamer is entirely legit and likely to succeed, and Edge is in fact a rip-off of Bobby Bearing, which was somehow ripped off by Atari, due to Mark Cerny's invention of a FUCKING TIME MACHINE.

    Hurrah! We can all rest easy now we know THE TRUTH.

  • Sunyavadin #280 3 years ago

    @KrissAkabusi

    I know your profile states your location as Italy, but unless I'm mistaken they ousted the fascists some time back, didn't they? I can't imagine the current legal system there places burden of proof soley upon the defendant - that sort of reasoning is what allows convictions for, say, witchcraft to take place (like in Saudi Arabia where women recieve the death penalty for "magically shrinking men's penises";) - in most civilised nations the claimant must present reasonable proof, not the other way around. Otherwise I could accuse you of robbing my house the other day, and it would be ENTIRELY upon you to prove that you could not have been there, and did not have involvement, while I would not even have to prove my house was robbed.

    Langdell and his cronies would first have to present evidence before they could not make such a claim of defamation. Eurogamer would have nothing to defend AGAINST until then.

    It would appear that YOU do not know what you are talking about.

  • Les #281 3 years ago

    "in most civilised nations the claimant must present reasonable proof, not the other way around. Otherwise I could accuse you of robbing my house the other day, and it would be ENTIRELY upon you to prove that you could not have been there, and did not have involvement, while I would not even have to prove my house was robbed."

    I love it when people with no legal background get all emotional with regards to legal issues...

    Defamation is a rather complex subject. The one accused of defamation (so in legal terms, or inside the court house the defendant) is in fact the accuser in the real world (or outside the court house).

    So to put things into the context of this article:
    - EG makes statements about Tim that can be seen as hurting his image (aka defamation)
    - Tim can thus sue EG for defamation in which case EG has to back up their statements with proof that they didn't just made it up
    - This is perfectly reasonable because Tim would be the party being hurt (the defendant) if EG published rubbish (the accuser) (which I don't think is the case here, just an example)

    Or to put it in yet another way:
    - Imagine I was a reputable news source and said that you stole money from your employer
    - This would likely hurt your reputation
    - If you probably wouldn't like that and might opt for suing me
    - In legal terms you would be the accuser and I would be the defendant
    - But, as I made negative statement about you most Western legislative bodies have in their wisdom decided that it would be a bit unfair if you had to prove that what I said was in fact false
    - So I have to prove that you did in fact stole the money (or that the information that was available to me, the context, etc., etc. did in fact give enough grounds for me to publish the statements)
    - If I can't do that, I'm guilty of defamation

  • Sunyavadin #282 3 years ago

    Yes, but EG 's claims of their business practices are all backed up by historical facts. Langdell would first have to find something within the article which could be seen as false. As it is, every bit of information here is clearly researchable by anyone. It'd probably take anyone one glance at the article to show that Langdell would have no case whatsoever. I doubt there's any chance this would even make it to a court.

    I've been involved on both sides in plenty legal battles, but I do concede defamation is one which I have no direct experience of. +1 for your detailing of the workings of it.
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/09 @ 18:16

  • Les #283 3 years ago

    "+1 for your detailing of the workings of it."

    No problem. Felt the debate was getting a bit too emotional... ;)

    As for the case at hand, I fully agree with you that EG would have a strong case in court. But that doesn't mean it would be annoying if they did get sued. Sometimes people leverage the cost and inconveniences of the legal system against opponents to get something that they aren't entitled to.

  • IP #284 2 years ago

    EA to kick Edge bottom: http://tt abvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=9...

  • SuperCoolEskimo #285 2 years ago

    I've read all 307 comments and I am amazed no-one has commented on just how punchable Tim Langdell's face is.
    Edited by 1 at 30/09/09 @ 01:06

  • swift0ne #286 2 years ago

    Brilliantly written article +1

  • mikegreen123 #287 2 years ago

    I do agree people/companies should protect their IP, but in this case it does seem a disgrace. Some company that hasnt done anything since the days of the 8bit computer trying to sue people.. doesnt look good to me...leaves a very bad taste. Good on EG for running the story, all adds to the weight of all the other news stories... hopefully getting this Iphone game getting released. Mike