Support NeoGAF

[JesseZao]

Finally! Edge is mine to be had!

Now this is definitely the "no excuse" purchase for anyone with an iphone OS device. $0.99 !

 

[ElAlcesDiablo]

Is it possible to buy this now and transfer it to an iphone to be acquired at a later date? (probably getting an iphone in a coupla months)

 

[Slightly Live]

Fuck Tin Langdell. Wish I had an iPhone just to purchase this game as a big middle finger up to the guy.

 

[Mafro]

Is it possible to buy this now and transfer it to an iphone to be acquired at a later date? (probably getting an iphone in a coupla months)

Yeah, it just downloads to iTunes once you've bought it, and it will be transferred over to the iPhone when you sync it.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

I'm amazed alright.:lol

 

[dallow_bg]

So... got this email from Mobigame:

And bought!
I've had the lite version on the phone forever! :lol

Good message they wrote.
I'm really glad they fought back.

 

[Sp3eD]

To think if he just left EA alone he would have swatted the indie developers down like flies.

He will probably now think about what could have been for the next several decades now.

 

[oracrest]

To think if he just left EA alone he would have swatted the indie developers down like flies.

He will probably now think about what could have been for the next several decades now.

From what I understand, you have to legally defend all infringments upon a name trademark, or you lose rights to that trademark. Langdell really has no choice but to fight EVERYONE that uses the name.

On the flipside, you have to actually be using the name yourself in order to maintain legal trademark rights, and he is questionably doing that.

 

[McBacon]

I was looking through the legal documents for a piece I was writing, and I came across this image from Langdell and just laughed and laughed.

He actually submitted that piece of shit to the judge. Looks like a fucking 10 year old drew it :lol

 

[phisheep]

From what I understand, you have to legally defend all infringments upon a name trademark, or you lose rights to that trademark. Langdell really has no choice but to fight EVERYONE that uses the name.

That's what trademark lawyers will tell you, but like everything else in the bizarro world of trademarks it isn't quite true.

You're not, for example, obliged to scour the world or the country looking for potentially infringing marks and sending them evil letters (though some trademark lawyers will tell you that you should and recommend a suitably-expensive associate to help you).

Details vary around the world, but usually there's only an infringement if use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive (that's the words of the Lanham Act in the USA).

 

[oracrest]

That's what trademark lawyers will tell you, but like everything else in the bizarro world of trademarks it isn't quite true.

You're not, for example, obliged to scour the world or the country looking for potentially infringing marks and sending them evil letters (though some trademark lawyers will tell you that you should and recommend a suitably-expensive associate to help you).

Details vary around the world, but usually there's only an infringement if use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive (that's the words of the Lanham Act in the USA).

I always picture something like this talking whenever I read your posts...

 

[BobTheFork]

I always picture something like this talking whenever I read your posts...

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/oracrest/chiefbarrister.png[/IMG]

Slap a glowing red phi symbol in it's head and it's art.

 

[Neuromancer]

I was looking through the legal documents for a piece I was writing, and I came across this image from Langdell and just laughed and laughed.

He actually submitted that piece of shit to the judge. Looks like a fucking 10 year old drew it :lol

(lol))

 

[OneEightZero]

I was looking through the legal documents for a piece I was writing, and I came across this image from Langdell and just laughed and laughed.

He actually submitted that piece of shit to the judge. Looks like a fucking 10 year old drew it :lol

Wouldn't surprise me if he did draw it when he was ten.

 

[oracrest]

Slap a glowing red phi symbol in it's head and it's art.

if you insist.

 

[SovanJedi]

I bought the game now for its placing in history, and actually found out it's a really neat game too! Total win in my book.

I hope GAF has had some suitable GIFs brewing for when the fat lady sings and his evil empire comes crumbling down.

 

[phisheep]

EA have today filed motions to strike down Langdell's latest petitions. It rather looks like Uncle Tim is using his old tactic of losing things in the post. Doubtless there are further complications in the pleadings as usual.

As it is nearly midnight here I am going to bed, and will do the detail tomorrow.

EDIT: Much thanks to Oracrest for what seems to be a remarkable likeness!

 

[phisheep]

There's not very much in these latest motions. But it does appear that Langdell has not (as should have done) served any of the case papers on EA's lawyers, who have only just found out about the recent motions by browsing the PTO's website.

They really should read GAF.

In the cancellation case, EA have moved to have Langdell’s latest motion struck out since it was delivered late. They also point out that Langdell appears not to have properly served documnnts on EA’s lawyers, and ask that he be required to use a trackable form of delivery in future (clearly the suspicion is that he is not sending them).

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92051465-CAN-20.pdf

The motion in the opposition case is more interesting. EA have made a similar motion (late and not served), but also suggest that EA’s motion to consolidate the cases should be treated as conceded on these grounds. In effect they are saying that since Langdell didn't object in time his objection is not effective and that the motion to consolidate the cases should be granted by default.

They then proceed to do a little hatchet job on Langdell’s claim that all he is after is swift justice – pointing out his series of delaying motions in the cancellation case. That bit is fun to read.

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91193736&pty=OPP&eno=8

My guess is that the Board will treat the motions on their merits rather than dismissing them out of hand - since it leaves Langdell less wriggle room further down the line. But both EA's motions will probably be granted, which will leave us with only one case to keep an eye on and a limited time for Langdell to answer.

There is one odd little quirk here: EA and Langdell seem to be talking at cross purposes over whether EA will need to do a new consolidated petition - I thiink what is happening is that EA think they have already done all the consolidating required (in the cancellation case), forgetting that there might be a need to re-present a petition incorporating the opposition motion as well; while Langdell seems to think that because his motion to reconsider dismissal predated EA's latest consolidated petition particularising fraud, they might have to do it over again.

It's a silly bit of procedural muddle - but it will take a little while (and probably a good few paragraphs in judgment) for the Board to disentangle this and tell the parties what they have to do.

 

[oracrest]

thanks again for the updates!

 

[Version 3.0]

Yes, thanks. I'm always eager to see what's up when this thread bumps.

 

[NichM]

Every time I find myself wondering why I still read GAF, I see that phisheep has bumped this thread. My hat is off to you, sir.

 

[Plywood]

if you insist.

The Goat of War

 

[Parallax Scroll]

When was the last time Edge actually released a game?

 

[Nickiepoo]

Edge Racers! (Out of stock)

 

[phisheep]

There was a small flurry of motions posted yesterday 1st June by Langdell. Haven't got around to reading them yet, as I moved house yesterday, and have the rather more pressing issue of getting my internet reliable.

Back soon.

 

[Edgeward]

Excited to hear the latest updates/analysis, phisheep!

 

[Diablohead]

I'm waiting for the huge bombshell to drop where Tim has to pay shit loads of cash or go to jail, a man can dream, right? :lol

 

[kenta]

There was a small flurry of motions posted yesterday 1st June by Langdell. Haven't got around to reading them yet, as I moved house yesterday, and have the rather more pressing issue of getting my internet reliable.

Back soon.

Just want to say thanks for these updates, always interesting.

Mind me asking how you're keeping tabs on all this? LexisNexis or something?

 

[AstroLad]

Just want to say thanks for these updates, always interesting.

Mind me asking how you're keeping tabs on all this? LexisNexis or something?

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91193736&pty=OPP

 

[Neuromancer]

There was a small flurry of motions posted yesterday 1st June by Langdell. Haven't got around to reading them yet, as I moved house yesterday, and have the rather more pressing issue of getting my internet reliable.

Back soon.

This D-bag just won't quit

 

[Fantastical]

This D-bag just won't quit

I mean... the word "edge" is basically his life.

 

[phisheep]

Let’s look at the cancellation proceeding first. It is easier.

Last time we looked (20th May), EA had filed a motion to strike Langdell’s previous motion (which was a reply to EA’s motion to oppose Langdell’s second doomed attempt to have the case thrown out) on the grounds he had filed it late – in 30 days instead of 20.

Langdell’s latest motion simply says that he got the deadline from ringing the Appeal Board and they told him 30 days.

This does rather suggest he is not using a lawyer and is winging it himself – and we’ll see more evidence of this in a minute.

Now for the opposition proceeding. Langdell filed two motions on the same day.

The first one is a further opposition to the motion to consolidate proceedings.

Paras 1 and 2 reiterate the business of deadlines that we’ve just seen.

Para 3 is a bit of a ramble – and worth a read if you enjoy logic puzzles. Essentially Langdell says that
(a) EA deliberately stopped the opposition proceeding ‘in its tracks’ by filing the motion to consolidate (which apparently is bad)
(b) There are further motion(s) that Langdell will file in the cancellation proceedings to delay them (which apparently is good – huh?)
(c) That EA filed their consolidated petition in the cancellation proceedings at a time when proceedings were suspended to consider Langdell’s revised motion to dismiss (actually this is blatantly untrue, since the proceedings were not suspended for this reason until five days AFTER EA’s petition, which they made at the express request of the Board. Tim is either trying to muddy the waters – if he is smart – or has completely lost track of what is happening – if he isn’t)

Paras 4 and 5 are boring – we’ve seen them all before.

In para 6 Langdell expresses disbelief that EA have not received any paperwork from him and suggests they contact their local post office – he also takes offence that EA should suggest he uses a tracked method of delivery and says they should do the same. It’s interesting what he doesn’t say though – although he hints heavily, he nowhere says that he has not received service copies of documents from EA.

Looks like he is trying hard to avoid perjury. That should be fun later on.

The second motion, also filed yesterday, is a motion to dismiss the opposition entirely under Rule 12(b) – the usual in this sort of case – on the two grounds that
(a) abandonment can’t be a ground for opposing a registration, so it is premature, and
(b) the allegations of fraud are not particularised and not credible

As to the latter – there’s probably enough in the cancellation case to make fraud stand up – and I suspect the Board will take the same approach as it did in the cancellation proceeding

For the first one it might depend on details of US legislation/caselaw that I’m not familiar with – I shall have to have a little rummage tomorrow unless any of you guys know something about this. But I’d guess that if ‘abandonment’ can mean ‘not in current use’ EA will be OK and Langdell won’t – though there might be technical reasons for him to get away with this.

However, Langdell does not seem to have learned his lesson from the cancellation proceedings. Because he has overreached himself a bit in this motion – bringing in things that are matters of evidence rather than procedure – then it will have to be treated as a motion for summary judgment rather than one for dismissal.

There’s some wonderfully ‘unlawyerly’ language in this motion as well.

 

[DryvBy]

I just finished reading the Wordpress breakdown of Langdell, the trademark issues and business practices.

It made me feel dirty. Hell, I'll make a donation to EA's legal fund if it will help put that guy out of business.

Why? They're a billion $ company. I think they can handle this one, boss. :lol

 

[oracrest]

In para 6 Langdell expresses disbelief that EA have not received any paperwork from him and suggests they contact their local post office

old dog, old tricks

 

[DryvBy]

I was looking through the legal documents for a piece I was writing, and I came across this image from Langdell and just laughed and laughed.

He actually submitted that piece of shit to the judge. Looks like a fucking 10 year old drew it :lol

It's better than Rare's new logo...

 

[Bentendo]

This guy is NUTS! Here are a list of companies he's tried to sue:

*EA for Mirror's Edge
*Mobigame for iPhone game Edge
*Sony for PlayStation Edge
*Namco for SOULEDGE
*New World Computing for Planet's Edge
*Marvel Entertainment for Cutting Edge, Double Edge, and Over the Edge
*Edge Tech Corporation for The Edge
*The person John Coates for his online forum EdgeGamers (seriously?)

Probably more we don't know about too.

EDIT: another one:

*PuzzleKings for Killer Edge Racing

Interestingly, many iPhone developers protested him by changing the name of their games: Critter Cruch became Critter Credge, Fez game Fedge, and Canabalt became Canabedge.

 

[phisheep]

Here's a bit of a question-and-answer session. The question is from para 8 in Langdells motion to dismiss EA's opposition:

Q: In what possible sense could Applicant be guilty of fraud when it is applying for another registration of a mark that it already owns for similar and related goods, and where it already owns at least two registrations (EDGE Reg. No. 2219837 and CUTTING EDGE Reg. no. 2251584) that have long ago achieved incontestable status.

The trouble with asking rhetorical questions, especially in legal documents, is that they sort of tempt you to work out what the answer is. So here's one:

A: Perhaps in the sense, Uncle Tim, that all of them were fraudulent to start with and have ever since been fraudulently renewed? That couldn't be it could it?

 

[phisheep]

This guy is NUTS! Here are a list of companies he's tried to sue:

I could not agree more on your first point. But you do have to be very careful about using the word 'sue' here. Langdell very rarely actually brings court proceedings himself.

Threats - or in legal terms 'polite offers to settle the matter amicably' - are more in his line.

 

[BluWacky]

Thanks as always for the summary, phisheep. I always read EA's filings because at least they're clear, but Langdell's ones drive me round in circles...

For the first one it might depend on details of US legislation/caselaw that I’m not familiar with – I shall have to have a little rummage tomorrow unless any of you guys know something about this. But I’d guess that if ‘abandonment’ can mean ‘not in current use’ EA will be OK and Langdell won’t – though there might be technical reasons for him to get away with this.

Abandonment is defined in the Lanham Act as:

A mark shall be deemed to be "abandoned" if either of the following occurs:

(1)

When [a mark's] has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use. Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for 3 consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment. "Use" of a mark means the bona fide use of such mark made in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark.

(2)

When any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes the mark to become the generic name for the goods or services on or in connection with which it is used or otherwise to lose its significance as a mark. Purchaser motivation shall not be a test for determining abandonment under this paragraph.

(bolded bit mine)

I had been a bit concerned that his recent shenanigans with "selling" Racers and his mobile version of Bobby Bearing etc. might protect his current use of the mark (even though it's registered on fraudulent grounds). Can EA prove that Langdell's hurried re-use of the mark is solely to reserve the right in it rather than genuine usage?

(if they can prove that the mark hasn't been in genuine use for a 3 year period I suppose that might work, but I'm a bit dubious about that).

I've just realised that the second paragraph of the above is why Google are so desperate to avoid everyone saying "just Google it" all the time...

 

[Willenium]

i believe i'll start writing emails to small-time game companies, claiming to have copyright on a title they plan on using, offering to drop the matter if they pay me $45,000. sounds easy enough! and no court costs? how can i lose?!

 

[Mario]

i believe i'll start writing emails to small-time game companies, claiming to have copyright on a title they plan on using, offering to drop the matter if they pay me $45,000. sounds easy enough! and no court costs? how can i lose?!

Said companies spend 30 seconds checking your claim here http://tess2.uspto.gov/ then report you to some authority?

I think the better plan is sending invoices for invoicing services to large corporates.

 

[GK86]

I hope EA squashes him.

 

[onegoodlogan]

If nothing else existed in the entire world wide web I'd still feel the internet was justified by the existence of this thread. Langdell really thought he could do this forever, didn't he?

 

[phisheep]

Here we go again. Yesterday (2nd June) Langdell filed an amended version of his motion the previous day to EA's opposition proceedings.

Looks like he belatedly read s1 of the Lanham Act and realised that what he said in para 3 of the original motion (about only needing to demonstrate prior use rather than current use) isn't actually a true reflection of the law.

Instead, he goes off on a complicated route about whether use was required to be shown for all products in the registration or only for at least one of them. Looks like a bit of a smokescreen to me, since the legislation isn't really about products at all but about classes of products.

Meanwhile, I have had a closer look at the abandonment claims:

Abandonment is defined in the Lanham Act as:

[definition omitted]

I had been a bit concerned that his recent shenanigans with "selling" Racers and his mobile version of Bobby Bearing etc. might protect his current use of the mark (even though it's registered on fraudulent grounds). Can EA prove that Langdell's hurried re-use of the mark is solely to reserve the right in it rather than genuine usage?

There might be a bit of confusion between abandonment of a trademark and abandonment of an application - either of which might be true in this case.

That aside, I can't find anywhere in the legislation or the trademark rules that restricts the grounds for opposition in such a way as to exclude abandonment (of either sort) as a ground for opposition. In particular, s1(2) Lanham Act (15 USC 1051) says:

(2) The application shall include specification of the applicant’s domicile and citizenship, the date of the applicant’s first use of the mark, the date of the applicant’s first use of the mark in commerce, the goods in connection with which the mark is used, and a drawing of the mark.

That word 'is' is important - it means that the mark must be in use at the time of application, not merely at some prior time.

So it would seem that abandonment of a mark prior to the time of application would be grounds for opposition to the mark being registered.


On BluWacky's final point the burden of proof may well be the other way round, at least in the opposition proceeding - it should be for Langdell to demonstrate current use in commerce rather than for EA to disprove it. This may be the other way round in the cancellation proceedings, but I guess this is where the Chaosedge research comes into its own.

 

[emomoonbase]

I doubt Langdell can edge his way out of this one.

 

[phisheep]

Well, this just got interesting. Langdell has sued EA.

Really sued them – not just threatened, cajoled or written mean letters like he usually does.

Sued them.

In the federal court.

Yesterday.

For infringement of his EDGE trademarks by using ‘Mirror’s Edge’.

You’d have thought the last thing Langdell wanted was to be before a court.

The rationale behind this move is that if there are civil proceedings going on, then the Trademark Board is supposed to suspend proceedings in anything else until the civil case is completed (which could take years). And sure enough – also yesterday – he filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the cancellation case for just this reason.

Here it is:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92051465&pty=CAN&eno=22

Of course, as we’ve come to expect, this is by no means as simple as it sounds. In fact this is potentially hellishly complicated – even paradoxical. Because the court case won’t be able to conclude without knowing whether the trademarks were valid, which it can’t because the Board can’t determine whether the trademarks were valid because of proceedings being suspended until the court case finishes. A sort of legal catch-22.

From my point of view I hope this doesn’t work – because if this vanishes into a federal court we will lose sight of what is going on, since they don’t (so far as I know) have this useful database of all the filings generally available.

But it will be fascinating to see what happens.

I’m a bit busy with some criminal law at the moment, but will revisit this in more detail over the weekend.

 

[Castor Krieg]

Well, this just got interesting. Langdell has sued EA.

Really sued them – not just threatened, cajoled or written mean letters like he usually does.

Sued them.

In the federal court.

Yesterday.

For infringement of his EDGE trademarks by using ‘Mirror’s Edge’.

You’d have thought the last thing Langdell wanted was to be before a court.

The rationale behind this move is that if there are civil proceedings going on, then the Trademark Board is supposed to suspend proceedings in anything else until the civil case is completed (which could take years). And sure enough – also yesterday – he filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the cancellation case for just this reason.

Here it is:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92051465&pty=CAN&eno=22

Of course, as we’ve come to expect, this is by no means as simple as it sounds. In fact this is potentially hellishly complicated – even paradoxical. Because the court case won’t be able to conclude without knowing whether the trademarks were valid, which it can’t because the Board can’t determine whether the trademarks were valid because of proceedings being suspended until the court case finishes. A sort of legal catch-22.

From my point of view I hope this doesn’t work – because if this vanishes into a federal court we will lose sight of what is going on, since they don’t (so far as I know) have this useful database of all the filings generally available.

But it will be fascinating to see what happens.

I’m a bit busy with some criminal law at the moment, but will revisit this in more detail over the weekend.

Can the Court rule to allow the trademark proceedings to continue because the nature of the trademarks lies at the heart of civil law case? Surely there must be a system for that.

 

[edgefusion]

Was he hoping Mirror's Edge 2 would be announced at E3 or something?

 

[Jackl]

The trademark equivalent of domain squatting. Yuck, corporate ransom. I know many people don't have much love for mega-companies. But these type of leeches pressure independents and start ups as well. Siphoning as much as they can from the system.

 

[phisheep]

Can the Court rule to allow the trademark proceedings to continue because the nature of the trademarks lies at the heart of civil law case? Surely there must be a system for that.

I guess it might be able to - but as I'm not familiar with US procedure I will have to rummage a bit to find out.