Support NeoGAF

[Minamu]

He looks like:

:lol

 

[phisheep]

I have a question about this West Texas crap. I've mentioned that I wrote a paper last semester for Ethics class about the ethical implication of patent/trademark squatting and Langdell was a big part it. How or why is it ok or legal to just drag these cases (usually with neither party being stationed anywhere near Texas) into what are universally considered biased courts for so many trademark and patent trials.

You'd probably find it worthwhile reading the Federal Circuit judgment in Motiva v Nintendo, it shouldn't be too hard to track it down, but here's a sample:

Fifth Circuit has unequivocally rejected the argument that citizens of the venue chosen by the plaintiff have a ‘substantial interest’ in adjudicating a case locally because some allegedly infringing products found their way into the Texas market.

There's a sort of summary here.

One of the really stupid things is the assumption that if you move a case more than 100 miles it makes it more difficult for witnesses even if the witnesses were nowhere near the court in the first place!

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

What I'm thinking of here is if the current case finds fraud but only on a later renewal of a trademark rather than on initial application.

A case about activity that postdates the fraud that is found won't have have to set about proving it again. A case on earlier facts might have to show that the THEN trademark was somehow invalid, which would mean going through this stuff all over again, which costs a lot and is harder to prove.

All I mean by the burden of proof being greater is that there would be more stuff to prove.

Aaaaahhhh, okay. I just went back and re-read your post. Makes sense now. Thanks!!

 

[BobTheFork]

You'd probably find it worthwhile reading the Federal Circuit judgment in Motiva v Nintendo, it shouldn't be too hard to track it down, but here's a sample:



There's a sort of summary here.

Ah, thank you I''l look it up. That quote is really great though and I'm glad they rejected it.

 

[BobTheFork]

Ugh, I just read a portion of that. Follow up, is there any benefit (monetary, employment, other?) that makes the court WANT to have that case held there? Reading through some of that it sounded like they were just telling Nintendo that they were going to lose :/

 

[phisheep]

Ah, thank you I''l look it up. That quote is really great though and I'm glad they rejected it.

Now if the UK and Australian courts would just do the same for libel tourism, the whole world would be a happier, or at least a less litigious, place.

 

[phisheep]

Ugh, I just read a portion of that. Follow up, is there any benefit (monetary, employment, other?) that makes the court WANT to have that case held there? Reading through some of that it sounded like they were just telling Nintendo that they were going to lose :/

It's not what the court wants, it is what the plaintiff wants (they file suit anywhere they can get away with that gives them the best chance of winning).

There are rules about this stuff in the more ordinary sort of case - you'd file where the defendant lives or where the crime/tort was committed or where the defendant's place of business is or where the witnesses are and so on. But in IP cases there seems to have been a drift to East Texas on rather spurious grounds whenever the plaintiff has an advantage there (which, notoriously, it has where the plaintiff is either American or small and the defendant is either foreign or big corporate).

Don't know whether it is local law, or judges, or juries, but whatever it it is it makes them popular.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

Now if the UK and Australian courts would just do the same for libel tourism, the whole world would be a happier, or at least a less litigious, place.

A-fucking-men sir.

 

[BobTheFork]

It's not what the court wants, it is what the plaintiff wants (they file suit anywhere they can get away with that gives them the best chance of winning).

There are rules about this stuff in the more ordinary sort of case - you'd file where the defendant lives or where the crime/tort was committed or where the defendant's place of business is or where the witnesses are and so on. But in IP cases there seems to have been a drift to East Texas on rather spurious grounds whenever the plaintiff has an advantage there (which, notoriously, it has where the plaintiff is either American or small and the defendant is either foreign or big corporate).

Don't know whether it is local law, or judges, or juries, but whatever it it is it makes them popular.

Well, if it's not about what the court wants, then why do these particular courts have such a tracked history of plaintiff favoritism? Do they just think they are always helping 'the little guy' fight the 'big evil fatcats'? I thought maybe that they got some form of benefit for making such a strangely one sided decision when they rejected a change of venue.

 

[phisheep]

Well, if it's not about what the court wants, then why do these particular courts have such a tracked history of plaintiff favoritism? Do they just think they are always helping 'the little guy' fight the 'big evil fatcats'? I thought maybe that they got some form of benefit for making such a strangely one sided decision when they rejected a change of venue.

I'm guessing here, but I suspect that the 'plaintiff favouritism' is probably a jury thing.

As for rejecting change of venue, that's understandable. Judges are hellishly busy people and it plays havoc with the listings to have cases moving out - I'd guess that every judge wants to keep a case once they have it (regardless of which way it gets decided eventually).

Plaintiff favouritism aside, I think the main problem is allowing these cases to be filed in courts with only a tenuous relation to the matters in issue. That's what needs fixing. The less courtroom tourism, the less the incentive (if there is one) to make your courts attractive to particular sorts of plaintiff.

 

[BobTheFork]

I'm guessing here, but I suspect that the 'plaintiff favouritism' is probably a jury thing.

As for rejecting change of venue, that's understandable. Judges are hellishly busy people and it plays havoc with the listings to have cases moving out - I'd guess that every judge wants to keep a case once they have it (regardless of which way it gets decided eventually).

Plaintiff favouritism aside, I think the main problem is allowing these cases to be filed in courts with only a tenuous relation to the matters in issue. That's what needs fixing. The less courtroom tourism, the less the incentive (if there is one) to make your courts attractive to particular sorts of plaintiff.

Agreed. Then I have to wonder about the jury. I did mild research on general court cases and much more extensive research on a few specific cases. It might not be fair to call it plaintiff favoritism but there were so many cases I saw all in the same district and often, as we have here, not a single person in the case has ties to the area. It's not the way I thought it would work, having not known as better before.

 

[phisheep]

Agreed. Then I have to wonder about the jury. I did mild research on general court cases and much more extensive research on a few specific cases. It might not be fair to call it plaintiff favoritism but there were so many cases I saw all in the same district and often, as we have here, not a single person in the case has ties to the area. It's not the way I thought it would work, having not known as better before.

It might be just a myth.

There's a similar myth in UK criminal cases that the defendant has a better chance in the Crown Court before a jury rather than before magistrates. So where the defendant gets the choice all the slam-dunk guilty ones elect to be tried by magistrates (lower sentencing powers) and all the innocent ones elect for the Crown Court (higher sentences but you get a jury).

Result is that all the statistics support the myth but only because the myth is self-fulfilling.

It might be that juries everywhere in the US would decide the same as the East Texas ones, and East Texas just gets a bad rep because all the dodgy cases go there. Because of the myth.

It probably took only one high-profile case to establish the myth in the first place.

 

[Blimblim]

Some more info on that east Texas patent stuff on that delightful Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._John_Ward

Ward believes the problem of patent trolls is overstated and that his record of only being overturned once supports this view. Between taking the bench in 1999 and June 2006, Ward was only overturned in one patent case.

Patent cases presented before Ward are more frequently won by the patent holder plaintiff than the defense.[9] One source claims that patent holders win 88% of the time in Ward's court, compared to an average of 68% nationwide.[3] Another source claims that patent cases in Marshall are won by patent holders 78% of the time versus 59% nationwide.[1] And a third source claims that in 90% of cases patent holders win jury verdicts.[8]

 

[phisheep]

There has been quite a lot of activity in the lawsuit - a bunch of motions flying around.

So far as I can tell there's nothing new in the substantive claim and counterclaim from what we have seen already, so I don't propose to go through them in detail - besides it will cost me real money to get my hands on them, and I'd rather reserve that for when something new and interesting happens. So at the moment I'm only going by the list of documents available.

A couple of points might be of interest though:

8 July 2010: Order reassigning the case. Haven't the faintest idea where to - or where from. I kind of guess that East Texas may be one of the two! Don't really care enough to find out though.

20 Aug 2010: Motion for a preliminary injunction. Almost certainly Langdell seeking to stop Mirror's Edge in its tracks pending outcome of the case. Since the Mirror's Edge mark has already been registered I reckon this is unlikely to be granted.

26 Aug 2010 (before EA's counterclaim): a bunch of documents including a stipulation and proposed order to proceed by private ADR, and an enormous amount of material in support of it. I guess this is from Langdell's side in order to avoid court proceedings. I can't see that this will be acceptable to EA, because an ADR approach (that's Alternative Dispute Resolution - an out-of-court approach) will not be able to provide the remedies that EA is seeking in cancellation of the trademarks, it is usually more appropriate when the remedy lies in damages.

30 Aug and 2nd September: a couple of Pro Vice Hac motions so that the party's lawyers can appear in a court outside their normal jurisdiction.

Some more info on that east Texas patent stuff on that delightful Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._John_Ward

I don't think this gives any conclusive evidence either way about alleged bias in East Texas.

"Not being overturned" isn't really any help - I don't think anyone has seriously claimed that the Texas courts are routinely overturned on points of law (and appeal courts, if they are anything like the UK ones, are notoriously reluctant to overturn findings of FACT by the court of first instance). Mostly, if there is court bias, it will lie in findings of fact rather than of law - it's the same sort of thing that happens in UK libel cases which is why the appeal courts have such a hard time keeping on top of it.

As to the numbers, frankly I'm not really surprised at the East Texas numbers - I'm surprised at how low the numbers are for the rest of the country (perhaps because so many cases go to Texas). In Patent and Trademark cases it is quite usual for the plaintiff to win - usually it is the plaintiff who has the registered patent/trademark on their side and often the case isn't so much about liability as about the measure of damages that is appropriate, and win/lose isn't really an appropriate measure of that. For example, it will be shown as a 'win' if the plaintiff gets any damages at all, even derisory ones, whereas the defendant might well feel they have won (and have won in some real sense) if the court decides they pay damages of a few hundred dollars rather than the several million that was claimed in the first place. A more appropriate measure of success would be which way legal costs are awarded at trial - I'm not aware of any analysis of that.

Mostly - if you are anyone other than Tim Langdell - a plaintiff will only bring a case if they have a reasonable chance of winning it - probably over 50% and nearer 80%.

 

[phisheep]

Impatience got the better of me, so I forked out some dollars to get hold of court papers. Not all of them, so I might have missed something, but there is some juiciness here.

The next important date is 30th September, which is the date set for the first case management conference and, more importantly, the hearing on whether Langdell will get an injunction against EA to stop them using ‘Mirror’s Edge’ until the case finishes.

As I said before, this seems unlikely. I’ll try to post as soon as I can in October so we all know what happens/is happening next.

Langdell’s claim is uninteresting – we’ve heard it all before. EA’s counterclaim is much more fun and goes into detail (founded on the Chaosedge research) about allegations of fraud. To give a flavour of it, here is the opening paragraph in full:

EA is the latest target of Tim Langdell’s decades-long campaign to block anyone from using the word “edge,” or any variation thereof, in connection with the marketing and sales of video games and related products or services. Through a series of fraudulent misrepresentations to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), Langdell—a one-time designer of video games for such long-since obsolete video game systems as the Amiga, Amstrad CPC, Atari ST, Commodore 64, Oric, and Sinclair ZX Spectrum—has obtained federal registrations for a purported “family” of EDGE marks. Neither Langdell nor his alter ego companies have made any legitimate and good faith use of those marks in commerce, but they have instead used the marks to assert baseless claims against third parties and to extract undeserved settlements, consisting of invalid naked licenses and assignments in gross which Langdell has used to maintain his fraudulently obtained registrations. Through this counterclaim, Counterclaimants seek cancellation of the invalid registrations maintained by Langdell’s alter egos and a declaration that his companies have no common law rights in the purported marks that are the subject of those registrations.

Punchy stuff, and the rest of the document follows suit.

What I haven’t seen yet is Langdell’s answer to the counterclaim. Either he hasn’t made one yet or I missed it. When it turns up I will go into some detail.

Incidentally, Langdell’s motion for an injunction – unlike his initial claim – seems to go rather over the top in making apparently false claims – here’s a sample:

Edge develops, distributes and sells video game software and licenses its trademarks for use in computer hardware, video game-related websites, comic books, and other gaming-related goods and services. … Between 2003 and 2009, Edge sold over 11,000 units of boxed, pre-packaged game software and over 45,000 mobile-phone games under the EDGE marks. … In addition, Edge has licensed certain of the EDGE marks to other game companies that have themselves sold tens of thousands of authorized units, and licensed the publisher of “EDGE Magazine” a video-gaming website with hundreds-of-thousands of unique visitors per month. … Edge’s current releases include the video games “Racers” and “Mythora” for the PC platform and “Bobby Bearing,” “BattlePods” and “Pengu” for certain mobile phones … All of these bear a prominent EDGE mark. … Edge is currently developing Racers for release on the Xbox 360, Wii and Playstation 3 as well as Bobby Bearing for the Android, iPhone, iPad, PC and Mac platforms. … Edge is also developing a sequel to Bobby Bearing, to be released next year, as well as Mythora 2 and a game code-named “Firebirds” for the iPhone.... Nonetheless, Edge is a comparatively small company, with revenues and unit sales that amount to a tiny fraction of EA’s receipts from its MIRROR’S EDGE sales alone.

(I have omitted the references to other documents to make it easier to read).

Pretty well all of this has been comprehensively debunked by Chaosedge, and it will be interesting to see how much of it can be sustained in evidence.

Roll on 30th September!

 

[LCfiner]

Thanks for the update. it's appreciated.



(and fuck Tim Langdell, of course)

 

[water_wendi]

Thanks for keeping us up to date on this phisheep.. especially the paying for the documents stuff :lol Always an interesting read when this thread is updated!

 

[dallow_bg]

EA's counter is great.

Glad to see them actively fighting his garbage.

Appreciate your work very much good sir.

 

[phisheep]

One thing I am curious about is that claim that

Between 2003 and 2009, Edge sold over 11,000 units .... etc etc

I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that Edge (either Edge Interactive Media or Edge Games) was actually suspended from trading during that time. How do they trade when they are suspended (legally, I mean). Can't remember now where I read that, can anyone enlighten me?

 

[Sega]

Impatience got the better of me, so I forked out some dollars to get hold of court papers. Not all of them, so I might have missed something, but there is some juiciness here.

I'd like to paypal you a bit cash as thanks for this, and possibly for more court papers. Is this possible? I think it'd be nice if others chipped in too.

 

[Altazor]

One thing I am curious about is that claim that



I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that Edge (either Edge Interactive Media or Edge Games) was actually suspended from trading during that time. How do they trade when they are suspended (legally, I mean). Can't remember now where I read that, can anyone enlighten me?

I'm pretty sure Chaosedge was the first website/dude/whatever to buy Racers or Mythora online... and quite probably the only one. Langdell is, unsurprisingly, faking those numbers... I guess. I just can't wrap my head around why somebody would fucking buy shit like that... but what do I know :lol

thanks for all the effort, phisheep.

 

[Hypno Funk]

One thing I am curious about is that claim that



I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that Edge (either Edge Interactive Media or Edge Games) was actually suspended from trading during that time. How do they trade when they are suspended (legally, I mean). Can't remember now where I read that, can anyone enlighten me?

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but if you visit EDGE(tm) Games' Website:
http://www.edgegames.com/

You'll notice an advert for their latest hot title on PC, "Racers". Head over to the site's store and you there's a buy link for the game which takes you to the Amazon.com page:
http://www.amazon.com/Racers-Pc/dp/B002PXUZU0/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1283302437&sr=1-1

There are 7 reviews for this game, but here's one of them:

This game is delivered on a blank recordable DVD which cannot be read in any machine, not surprising because the DVD was not recorded. The packaging is ink-jet printing and not professionally printed. The box is a cheap DVD case. There was no printed instruction booklet, just a piece of paper with more cheap ink-jet printing. The DVD label was a sticker. The seller refused to give any kind of refund or accept any returns. I think the five out of five "review" is obviously suspect since who would seriously litter their review with (R) symbols, apart from the owner of course.

Seems the whole operation is a scam, I don't even think they make games anymore, just pretend they do.

 

[crowphoenix]

Edge Games®, home of the Gamers Edge®, has long been my favourite games publisher. The Edge® led the way during gaming's golden era with standout titles such as the mind-bending Mazenture® and the captivating Activator®. Since then, the Masters Of The Game® have remained on the Cutting Edge® of game development with breakout genre busters like Mythora® (medieval AND futuristic? Can you beat that!?). Now, Edge® redefines modern gaming with this outstanding addition to the 700 strong Edge Games® catalogue: the cunningly titled Racers®.

Racers® promises much to the eager player: unlock more than a dozen space jets! Play in championship races worldwide on Internet servers! Multiple powerups! Numerous achievements! Strategies! It seems unlikely that any one game could possibly deliver on such outlandish promises, but, somehow, Racers® delivers on all fronts.

First, the visuals. From the sublime cover art through to the numerous and tastefully typeset trademarks that adorn the back of the case, Racers® is a real looker. The slick retro stylings of the numerous space jets and uncluttered interface leave imitators like Wipeout in the dust. Not since Mega Race has a futuristic racing game featured such compelling visual splendour.

The gameplay is equally compelling; so vivid is the sensation of speed I was on the verge of blacking out. Pressing various keys allows you to control your sleek craft and mastery of this skill is key to being a competitive member of the thriving online Racers® community.

The audio fits the action to a tee and will keep you on the edge® of your seat. Racers® sets new benchmarks for in game audio, delivering a sonic slug to the solar plexus of pale facsimiles such as Extreme-G and Sky Roads.

To sum up: I can't recommend this game highly enough. Edge® have produced an unqualified masterpiece that can confidently rub shoulders with the likes of Hi-Octane and Mach Rider, themselves outstanding examples of the genre. The fact that there is only a single copy remaining is testament to its quality. Live life on the edge®: grab it now!®

:lol This is some good sarcasm. I'm glad EA is fighting this man.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I'd like to paypal you a bit cash as thanks for this, and possibly for more court papers. Is this possible? I think it'd be nice if others chipped in too.

phisheep's a lawyer, you don't need to paypal him money

 

[Sega]

phisheep's a lawyer, you don't need to paypal him money

Not all lawyers are rolling in cash. But yeah, he's still sharing it with us, and I'd like to say a bit of thanks in that way. I don't personally make lawyerin' money though, so if it he turns it down because he wipes his ass with $100 bills, I won't fight him on it.

 

[Hypno Funk]

*edit: one too many windows open.

 

[Deleted member 20415]

Seems the whole operation is a scam, I don't even think they make games anymore, just pretend they do.

I wish I had kept my copy of Racers. It was sent to my company and found its way to my desk, but got lost in the shuffle of an office move.

As that review said, it was a DVD-R with horrible ink jet printed cover. I never played the game, so I can't speak to the abilities of the original developer.

 

[ShinNL]

Thanks again phisheep.

Is there any extra penalty for lying so badly as Tim Langdell and causing everyone extra work?

 

[oracrest]

One thing I am curious about is that claim that



I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that Edge (either Edge Interactive Media or Edge Games) was actually suspended from trading during that time. How do they trade when they are suspended (legally, I mean). Can't remember now where I read that, can anyone enlighten me?

Between 2003 and 2009, Edge sold over 11,000 units of boxed, pre-packaged game software and over 45,000 mobile-phone games under the EDGE marks

I am guessing that he himself didn't sell any games, but managed to get third parties to give him money to use the name, (rather than removing the edge name?) and he is attributing those sales to "his mark."

Which is funny, because that's exactly what EA is claiming he is doing.

"under the EDGE marks" is a really ambiguous blanket term.

 

[oracrest]

Thanks again phisheep.

Is there any extra penalty for lying so badly as Tim Langdell and causing everyone extra work?

Double post!

Well, if he loses, I believe that he could be responsible for lawyer's fees and court fees? Also, it sets great precedent!

I mean, what's he going to do next when this is over, design a game? :lol :lol :lol

 

[phisheep]

Thanks again phisheep.

Is there any extra penalty for lying so badly as Tim Langdell and causing everyone extra work?

Perjury, fraud, tax evasion, legal costs, perverting the course of justice, breach of court orders ....

No, not much.

EDIT: forgot blackmail

 

[Seda]

Langdell's a moron

 

[phisheep]

"under the EDGE marks" is a really ambiguous blanket term.

Yeah, but "Edge sold ..." isn't. Means I would expect to see those returns in his accounts and tax returns.

 

[beat]

Is Langdell still employed as a teacher or professor?

 

[duckroll]

For the benefit of those who previously subscribed to this thread, the new developments are here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=409267