This is a response to the recent dust up over, IGDA Board member Tim Langdell and the EDGE Trademark . I am speaking now for myself and NOT on behalf of the IGDA.
I call that a hatchet jobs aimed at Tim L. and at the IGDA because the author, the Editor of the Gamasutra web site didn’t do what I feel is the necessary due diligence before posting. I think this matter is obviously a bit more complex that Simon’s article presented it. I feel it was irresponsible of Simon to not ask everyone involved for their comments prior to poast, as is the standard practice of journalists.
This dispute relates to a company that believes that is it enforcing its Trademark (See below). While you or I may not agree with those laws related to Trademarks, they are what they are. Moreover, the IGDA represents the individuals who make games, not the companies that make them. So, although no one is more committed to independent developers than I am, this is a legal dispute between two companies regarding an alleged Trademark infringement. So, while I anyone’s effort to fight for the little guy, these matters are for the court of law, not for a court of public opinion.
As someone who has litigated intellectual property cases, I can tell you that these cases are never as simple as they might seem to a lay person, especially when one only has access to one side of the story. I suspect that if you had spend 20 odd years building a Trademark to brand your studio and games, and paid to have a Trademark registered, you might also feel compelled to enforce your trade name. BTW, if you do not enforce your Trademark, you may lose it. So you may want to also take that into account in your analysis!
This is hardly a matter for the IGDA either…Board members do not lose their legal rights when elected to the Board. I personally do not think that lobbying the IGDA to intervene or even take sides in a legitimate legal disputes not the right approach, even if one of the parties to that dispute is a member of the BoD!. If Tim’s position is correct (and I do not have enough information to determine that issue one way of the other) you are recommending that the IGDA support a party who has infringed a legal and enforceable Trademark. That’s just nutty!
I do not see that as a viable position for the organization under any circumstances. In any case, I do not see how Tim L. vigorously enforcing his legal rights as contrary to the code of ethics in any way.
Again, I am speaking now for myself and NOT on behalf of the IGDA or as an IGDA Board member. But as me, Tom Buscaglia, The Game Attorney.
Tom B
************’
Word Mark EDGE
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer game software, computer game programs, video game software, video game programs, computer game software that may be downloaded from a global computer network, video game software that may be downloaded from a global computer network, computer game cartridges to be used in computer game machines adapted for use with television receivers, video game cartridges, computers, computer accessories, plug-in boards, peripheral devices, flash cards, set-top boxes, cable modems, mobile game devices, handheld game devices, video game consoles, video game assessories, video game peripherals, augmented reality games, virtual reality games, games designed for use with mobile entertainment devices. FIRST USE: 19840601. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19840601
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78807479
Filing Date February 5, 2006
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) EDGE GAMES, INC. CORPORATION 530 SOUTH LAKE AVENUE #171 PASADENA CALIFORNIA 91101
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Prior Registrations 1853705;2219837;7502940
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
——————————————————————————–
Thanks for your response, Tom. I hadn’t expected such a swift, colorful and vitriolic rejoinder. Best wishes.
Comment by max.shea — May 30, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
I highly disagree with you there, tom.
First off, you think the article is biased because it’s from a competitor of Edge magazine? From what I understand, the only connection between Tim Langdell and Edge Magazine is that he licenses the name Edge to them.
Otherwise, they’d get sued too.
If Langdell doesn’t get what he wants (a quick settlement, a name changed, or something taken down) he makes juvenile, passive agressive and provocative things on his website related to that.
For example, around the same time the video game Mirror’s Edge came out, Langdell put up an advertisement on his site saying NEW GAME COMING SOON: MIRRORS. With the EDGE logo directly beneath mirrors, and just as large, it reads as Mirror’s Edge.
My take would be Langdell tried sueing EA over that game, and EA, who seems to have the strongest legal dept. in the buisness, probally laughed at him. So this is his way of provocating a lawsuit, by making a an advertisement for a game he isn’t even really developing.
Comment by Arma — June 1, 2009 @ 2:30 am
“Maybe you think that everyone in the industry over 40 should just walk out onto he ice flows…”
Maybe someone who hasn’t released a game since 1994 already did? As for the game credits he has, I guess hehas the kind of credits that appear “subjective” to say the least. In the last 15 years the only credits he got were lawsuits for crying out loud.
But the credits are out of the question anyway. Even the guy was Myamoto, he would get rightfully flammed for what he’s trying to do to those indies. It’s really obvious they didn’t infrige his trademark and he perfectly knows it.
Comment by masrabel — June 1, 2009 @ 7:28 am
>> if you do not enforce your Trademark, you may lose it.
It is a common misconception that because of this idea, one is therefore obliged to send a nastygram demanding that everyone stop using anything remotely close to your trademark, or else start taking people to court.
A far more practical and sane solution is to simply send them a letter granting them license to use it. That way your trademark is still thoroughly protected.
A lawsuit or threats of same is not always the right answer!
Of course, you wouldn’t want to grant a license to someone who you think is willfully infringing with a competing business, but some of the examples above seem too diverse to imagine they are deliberately infringing.
Best regards.
Comment by tartley — June 4, 2009 @ 11:38 am
Hey Tom Buscaglia the GAME ATTORNEY: Game Developer does not compete with Edge magazine. Even a “lay person” with the slightest clue about the industry knows that. Edge is a UK-based magazine aimed squarely at consumers; Game Developer is US-based and focuses on developers themselves.
Good one trying to paint Simon into a corner GAME ATTORNEY.
Comment by punkrockguilt — June 5, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
“In any case, I do not see how Tim L. vigorously enforcing his legal rights as contrary to the code of ethics in any way.”
That, Mister GAME ATTORNEY, is sad (and I believe you). The supposed spirit of IDGA is to prevent exactly the kind of things Tim Langdell goes around doing - suing everyone under the sun in a pathetic attempt at apparently getting credit for games he has nothing to do with, developers be damned.
Comment by punkrockguilt — June 5, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
1. Tim L. never sued the guys from the iphone game.
2. The analogy with Simon and EDGE magazine was about as relevant as tying any action by Tim L. to the IGDA…that was the point. I guess my sarcasm didn’t come through, or you just missed it. My real gripe with Simon is that he never contacted Tim L. for his side or the story before slamming Tim. And he did not approach the IGDA for comment either, for that mater, which I felt was irresponsible and unprofessional of him.
3. Why the double post MR. PUNKROCKQUILT - ADD?
Comment by Tom B — June 5, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
“1. Tim L. never sued the guys from the iphone game.”
so it is not about a legal dispute between 2 companies but only about the behavior of Langdell? why do you protect this crock then?
“2. The analogy with Simon and EDGE magazine was about as relevant as tying any action by Tim L. to the IGDA…that was the point. I guess my sarcasm didn’t come through, or you just missed it. My real gripe with Simon is that he never contacted Tim L. for his side or the story before slamming Tim. And he did not approach the IGDA for comment either, for that mater, which I felt was irresponsible and unprofessional of him.”
Everybody knows Simon has been threatened by Langdell when he asked him his side of the story, by hidding those facts what you did to Simon is worst than what Simon did to Langdell… Tom Hatchet Job…
When will you make a true comment about Langdell behavior instead of hidding you behind a “legal dispute”? Maybe when your name will be on the first page on IGN.com beside Langdell’s one?
Simon does a great job for the industry, what about you?
Comment by Harry — June 5, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
” Everybody knows Simon has been threatened by Langdell when he asked him his side of the story, by hidding those facts what you did to Simon is worst than what Simon did to Langdell… Tom Hatchet Job…”
I asked Tim personally if Simon contracted him about the article before it was published and he told me that he was not informed by Simon until AFTER the piece was already posted. If true, and I have no reason to doubt it, that’s not fair reporting IMHO.
The IGDA Board was never contacted either…
If you have actual facts to the contrary, I would appreciate hearing them.
Comment by Tom B — June 5, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
maybe you are right, maybe Langdell did not have time to threat Simon before he posted the article, even if Simon sent an email to Langdell before publishing. As far as I know mobigame was never contacted either…
Regarding the article, Simon did not write only about a legal dispute, or about the IGDA, or about the iphone guys, but about demonstrable facts concerning Langdell. As a journalist he does not need your permission to write an article with demonstrable facts. There is no side of the story with demonstrable facts.
Anyway there is no doubt Simon contacted Langdell before/during/after publishing. How long will you avoid to answer to the main point and the other questions asked here:
http://gamasutra.com/blogs/StephenJacobs/20090601/1615/Class_Acts_Or_Not_The_IGDA_Langdell_Capps_and_quotPolicingquot_the_Board.php
Comment by Harry — June 6, 2009 @ 4:58 am
“How long will you avoid to answer to the main point and the other questions asked…”
To be honest, I am not sure what questions you want me to answer. I think I pretty much covered my position on this in my initial post.
In addition, I have had personal communications with both Tim Langdell and David Papazian about this matter, which both have asked me to keep confidential. And this is a complicated dispute, for sure. But nothing I learned has changed my position especially as applied to the IGDA and Tim L.’s position on the IGDA Board..
I know that this is not a popular position, as I have been subjected to all sorts of negative comments on several of the “Independent Developer” forums where this has become to “cause of the day.” But I call em as I see em.
That does not mean that I am taking anyone’s side in this matter…just that it is not a simple or one sided as originally presented and that the fact the Langdell is an IGDA Board member was not relevant to the story.
As I have said, I also think that the original author should have done a better job of securing comments from all parties, including Papazian, Langell and the IGDA before posting his piece.
That’s all.
Comment by Tom B — June 7, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
it has nothing to do with this particular legal dispute, you are still getting around the problem.
the questions are easy, is there a controversy surrounding the IGDA because of Langdell and how can we avoid the bad publicity he is bringing? hidding the truth is not an answer
at http://igda.org/board/#langdell you can read:
“Tim is a 30-year veteran of the video game industry, CEO of EDGE Games, its lead game designer, game developer, as well as professor and Lead Faculty for the MFA in Videogame Production & Design at National University . He also instigated interactive media and game curriculum at the University of Southern California Film School in 1992, and taught at USC for 14 years before moving to become Department Chair at National. Tim has worked on almost 200 titles over his career to-date, and is currently working on new games for the PS3, Wii, PC and Xbox 360. He founded EDGE Games in 1979, which in addition to the many EDGE videogames has spawned such well-known EDGE branded ventures as EDGE Magazine (published by Future), EDGE game PCs (made by Velocity Micro), EDGE-brand comics (published by Malibu/Marvel) and THE EDGE videogame controllers (made by DATEL). He is co-founder of AIAS, was responsible for the first televised game awards show, recently served on AIAS’ Board of Directors and assisted in launching ELSPA and FAST in the UK . Tim is also active in various ‘ Hollywood ‘ guilds/academies: the Producers Guild (sits on the new media board), the Writers Guild (helps run their Videogame Writers caucus), as well as ATAS (Emmys) and AFTRA. Tim has written several books – the historic Spectrum Handbook (1982), and more recently Game Testing All In One , and chapter author in the IGDA Writers SIG book Game Writing: Narrative Skills for Videogames . He gained his PhD in Psychology from University College London, his MA in Psychology from Nottingham University , and his joint BS in Physics/Astrophysics and Psychology from Leicester University”
given how much investigation has been done we all know he never worked on a game. some of the developers who worked for his company in the past told us he never paid the royalties, and we did not find more than 30 games published by his company in 30 years
he never “spawned” the edge magazine, there is no reference to his company in the last issues, and why is it called Next Gen in North America do you think? he never “spawned” Marvel’s comics, game PCs, … he never published a game since 1994, and his whole professional life is a lie. all the proofs have been given
on Gamasutra you said Langdell is associated with the edge magazine, and that’s wrong too. maybe you should answer to this question: do we have an extortionist at the IGDA board like Simon suggested in his article? If you answer no, we want some proofs, but Langdell himself failed on this…
Comment by Harry — June 8, 2009 @ 9:51 am
I am still not sure what you are expecting me to do. If Tim does not have the answers to your questions, I do not know why you would think that I do. Considering the amount of shit that has been dumped on me on some of these forums (like attacking my commitment to indies, my competency as an industry attorney and some rather childish name calling) asking me for help or to defend Tim is hardly appropriate.
If Tim overstated his credentials, which it appears he may have, is not really my problem. Though it appears that the majority of the things stated in his statement are true, there may have been some that were not. I just don’t know. (Though saying his whole career is a lie is probably an overstatement as well.)
I am pretty sure that he has licensed the TM Edge to the folks who publish the mag and other mentioned…whether that amounts to “spawning” is problematic.
You say, in one paragraph, that he has never worked on a game and then that he has published 30 games. Publishing a game is certainly, for many, working on a game…so that may be splitting hairs…but I get your point. As for the other “almost 170 game” he claims to have worked on…I have no idea where he came up with that number.
SImilarly, I have no idea of the quality of the “Investigation” that has been done or even who this “we” you refer to in your post is.
I do understand Tim’s reluctance to continue to reply to the demands for more and more information in the flame war on some of the forums while he is being called names and treated so viciously when he did try to engage in a dialog.
I just seems like people’s minds are already made up, so I would suspect he saw no point.
All in all, I do not represent Tim or his company…or the IGDA for that matter. Like they say, “I am not my brother’s keeper.” So, I don’t have any answers for you.
I have been very disturbed and, to be honest hurt, by a lot of what has been said about me personally. Flaming for you guys may be great sport. But I take my reputation in the industry seriously.
I am committed to independent developers. I provide free consultations to these guys on a regular basis. I provide free services to the IGF winners and as much free advice to the indie community at large as I can afford to. Sure, my typoing sucks from time to time. But people calling me a hack or a bad attorney because of a few typos, or because I express my personal opinion and they do not agree with it, IMHO goes too far.
I also contribute hundred or hours of my time each year the thee IGDA. So, when someone takes a cheap shot at the org like Carless did, I do tend to get defensive. I also take offense when when people who do not care enough about the industry to do anything other the criticize and bitch start trashing the IGDA instead of getting involved to try to make it better. So, yeah, I was probably a little too snide in my initial responses…which, unfortunately, that sort of dumbassed shit is pretty common for me.
As for this whole Langdell thing, I just don’t have anything more to say about it. There are far more productive things on my agenda that need my attention.
GL & HF!
Tom B
Comment by Tom B — June 8, 2009 @ 11:19 am
“I suspect that if you had spend 20 odd years building a Trademark to brand your studio and games, and paid to have a Trademark registered, …”
That is not the case. Tim married with a rich women, and seh left him to waste big amounts of money just to have him entertained. I remember when they told us the amount of money they paid for the license to make a Garfield game (in the Spectrum, Amstrad, … times). It was imposible to break even but it doesn’t matter to them as this was considered a distraction of her husband.
This is the most used statment of people (lawyers, ‘consultants’, …) that make money abusing from patents, trademarks, etc.:
“While you or I may not agree with those laws related to Trademarks, they are what they are.”
Yes, those laws are obsolete and with procedures that make them to be abused by people with no scrupulous to be used contrary to the reason for which they were created.
Comment by Carlos — August 5, 2009 @ 6:45 am
Tom,
I feel you missed a few flaws in Timothy’s approach to this dispute. While everything he has done has been within the bounds of law, legality is determined by the court and I have a feeling Timothy doesn’t have a chance in hell. I feel the jury would be quite displeased with the facts that:
1. Timothy did not remove himself from the IGDA board when this dispute started. To me, that’s a big no-no; suing a member of an organization while still serving on the board. I could be wrong on this, but his picture is still on the website, so frankly, it still appears he’s on the board. The right thing to do would be to take a hiatus until this blows over; if he was in the right, he’d have no problem getting his position back.
2. Timothy hasn’t used the name for a new product in years (again, as far as everything I’m reading has reported). While you are correct that a trademark is a trademark and he owns the rights to it, I’m sure he knew the existence of EDGE for iPhone within weeks of its release and could have easily sent a cease and desist at that time instead of waiting so long. Again, he has legally done what he’s entitled to, but it’s not going to fly in the public/jury’s eye. Then again, isn’t there some law that one can’t wait out a trademark infringement and needs to file a complaint as soon as they’re aware? In this case, I believe Mobigames won an award shortly after release, and considering Timothy is highly tied to the IGDA, there’s no way he could have missed this.
3. Also related to not using the Edge name for years: he can’t claim any lost profits or a share of EDGE’s profits. He technically can, but it’s really ungrounded; the best he could do without looking bad to the jury is send a cease and desist. Mobigames would have likely immediately complied, has Timothy not used constant scare tactics and superfluous threats. Yes, neither of those are concrete facts, but Timothy hasn’t (yet) claimed that the quotes that Mobigames has posted are lies and it’s all fairly traceable and provable in a courtroom.
4. Lastly, Timothy’s claims that EDGE is a clone of “Bobby Bearing” are complete lies. Timothy knows better than anyone else that game mechanics are reused and (most of the time) un-patentable; furthermore, I’m sure any good survey with a screen shot of “Bobby Bearing” would have the majority of people guessing that the screenshot was of “Marble Madness”. Frankly, I’d never heard of “Bobby Bearing” until this hit the news and Timothy Langdell knows that it sold poorly when it came out and was quickly forgotten. The first game EDGE reminded me of was a shareware game called “Kiki The Nanobot”; even if Timothy had a way to retro-actively patent the mechanic of “an object traversing a grid of cubes” it would never go through; you can’t patent prior art. To tell you the truth, the whole concept dates back to M.C. Escher, and before that, the ancient Egyptians.
Please forgive me if I’m legally dense; however, this whole situation is ridiculous. From my perspective, Apple has been in this boat countless times and whether it’s required by law or not, Apple always does the right thing, even when it’s in a stern manner. Yes, they don’t release the details of out-of-court settlements, but there are still plenty of instances when they have done the right thing, such as the time they sent an apology and reworked their canned responses after a little girl sent in some suggestions and got letter back with “angry-sounding” legalese.
Comment by slippyd — August 11, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
Tom, just a heads up– A TARR search on the registration you’ve listed as the one in dispute shows that the mark isn’t active. As of the last communication from the TM office in May 2009, that application is suspended pending the outcome of the TM office action and suspension actions from 2007 on.
In other words it’s not a registered mark. There are certainly common law claims, but claiming that the mark is registered is inaccurate.
http://tarr.uspto.gov/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78807479&action=Request+Status
Comment by quietkitten — August 13, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
I said the dispute relates to “a company that believes that is it enforcing its properly registered Trademark”…so while you are correct that the mark is only applied for, within the context of a lay article it is a distinction without a difference. But since you took the time to point it out, I have corrected that line of the post, even though it was hardly relevant to the point of my post of a few months ago.
I gotta tell you Mona, being such a nitpick does not endear you to anyone. It merely demonstrates hubris on your part!
Comment by Tom B — August 13, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
I’ve found that attorneys who AREN’T nitpicky are exposed to way more malpractice suits. So I’ll take my chances.
Comment by quietkitten — August 13, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
I find that attorneys who can not distinguish the difference between standards that are appropriate for pleadings or appellate briefs those that apply to a blog post lack a meaningful understanding of the world in which they live, the law or its practice. In short, your point was not only nitpicky, it was lame. And trying to defend it by implying that anything in my blog post reflects on my competence as an attorney was even lamer. You really need to learn to think before you hit that send button!
As for me, I find that providing quality service and value to each of my clients is the best way to avoid problems…and I seem to be doing OK. But thanks for your concern.
Best of luck in your legal career! I am sure you will do well…there’s always room for another anal retentive nitpicker in the bar!
Tom B
Comment by Tom B — August 13, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
I was implying that I’m not ashamed of being a nitpicker. In fact I didn’t even imply it, I said it outright. I would rather be a nitpicker than otherwise. Case closed. I tend to not beat around the bush when I think someone’s incompetent, and I certainly wouldn’t accuse you of being so. I’m not familiar enough with your practice to pass that kind of judgment, and every attorney I know who has worked with you has had nothing but good things to say. Why do you think I’m insulting you, Tom?
Comment by quietkitten — August 13, 2009 @ 8:19 pm