Alleged Trademark Troll and iPhone Developer Trade Volleys

The Tim Langdell saga continues…

By now, most readers are familiar with the controversy surrounding IGDA board member Tim Langdell, considered by many to be an abuser of the trademark process.

Perhaps the most frequently-heard complaint against Langdell is that in May of this year he persuaded Apple to remove the best-selling iPhone game EDGE from the App Store by claiming that the MobiGames title violated his trademark on the word "edge."

In the interim a movement to oust him from the IGDA board has taken hold, with more than 2,000 members of the group signing a petition to that effect.

Langdell has now fired back, disputing various allegations in an open letter to MobiGames and posting the text of various e-mails.

Pocket Gamer UK, however, has news of a response from MobiGames. There is a good deal of finger-pointing from both sides and it sounds as if this one will need to be worked out before a judge.

Partially Via: Kotaku

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. Gaming Observer says:

    I think everybody should send this link to Tim Langdell.  He might have missed this one…

    I can imagine the cease and desist now…


    Dear Sir or Madamme,

    Unfortunately you have chosen our famous trademark -EDGE- to promote your shemales.  This is only acceptable if you immediately subtitle your content to say "Chicks with Dicks: an Homage to Tim Langdell".

    Otherwise we must insist that you rename your site and content.  "EDGY" is available as an alternative, in case you believe that "EDGY Trannies" sounds like a nice alternative.




  2. Defenestrator says:

    I suspect that Electronic Arts is planning a Mirrors Edge 2 at some point.  I predict they’re already in preparation to squash Langdell like a bug.

    /never thought I would side with Electronic Arts in…anything

  3. Magic says:

    I don’t think it’s even Langdell and Co., if what I read is to be believed – it’s Langdell period. A sad little copyright troll on his own, masquerading as a big player of a company.

  4. mona.adele says:

     "We have never at any time engaged in what some people are calling "trademark trolling" whereby a company waits until some unspecting company uses its registered trademark and then demands money from that company to license the use of the registered trademark."


    So, Tim, what would you call a cease & desist every time someone uses your registered trademark (which, I might add, you haven’t legitimately used in commerce in about 10-15 years) that includes an alternative "licensing arrangement" in lieu of litigation? 

    Because I know what a patent troll is: squatting on a patent or buying up patents that may or may not stand up to judicial scrutiny, and then requiring a license from every producer of that patented product without actually producing that patented product yourself. It’s quite a lucrative business. Hell, in the course of work I’ve even found some copyright trolls, who do the same thing.

    Unfortunately the same process doesn’t work in trademark– patent trolls aren’t REQUIRED to produce their patented product. A copyright holder doesn’t have to publish her work after first publication. But a trademark owner is required to use that trademark in commerce. 

    And trying to attach your name to everything with a passing relationship to the word "edge" probably isn’t going to fly. 


    Someone please take this company to court already.


  5. Coach says:

    You didn’t expect him to say "Okay, you got me, I’m a weasel."  Did you?  I doubt anyone that is an a-hole looks in the mirror and recognizes themselves as such.  It takes many years and many more rationalizations to justify their actions to themselves.  It’s delusional, but that is how it happens.  They are truly miffed when others recognize them for who they are and are genuinely upset at the accusations and will defend their actions with the same rationalizations they’ve made to themselves.  It doesn’t change the fact that to the average person, they are an a-hole.  Self delsuion only works on yourself.  The rest of the world is free to look upon the actions and come to a rational conclusion.      

  6. Skillz817 says:

    I have nothing of significance to add but the only reaction I would give this guy is a punch in the face.

  7. Defenestrator says:

    Here’s what Tim does:

    1) He sees something out there in the entertainment industry with "Edge" in the title.

    2) He basically waits until it’s close to market and then sends a cease & desist letter and threatens a lawsuit.

    3) If you don’t immediately comply, he requests multiple delays for hearing and judgement at the IPO.

    Now, the company receiving this letter has a couple of options:

    1) Go through a rather lengthy and expensive process of fighting against EDGE for the use of the term OR

    2) Pay Tim 10%, 25% or whatever Tim is demanding.

    So far, most people have paid Tim off.  He did this to Malibu Comics (then part of the Marvel Entertainment Group).  He did this to Namco/Bandai due to Souledge (they did fight and win, but it was too late and had already renamed the game Soul Calibur).  He did this to the producers of the movie "The Edge," which had gone through numerous name changes already and unfortunately crapped out by picking "The Edge."  He did this to Velocity Micro who had "Edge" in the name of their gaming computer line.

    Tim had absolutely NO relation to any of these companies, yet he would have you believe he produced these comic books, movies and computers.  He did no such thing.

    He also claims to have taken on Electronic Arts over their "Mirrors Edge" game.  Yet, why is it that Langdell’s own site, which once purported to have a "coming soon" game called "Mirrors by EDGE Games" (with the words Mirrors and Edge positioned to look like a confusing read of "Mirrors EDGE") now only says "Mirrors."  Do you think EA threatened to squash him like a bug?  

    Why is it that his screenshots of "Racers" seem to have been plucked from another game in development by a now defunct Russian game developer?

    Why is he laying claim to the trademark of "Teenage Wasteland" when it’s rather clear he has nothing to do with it?  (The copyright is on file in Holder’s name, by the way.)

    Why did he trademark "Edgy" the day after discussing the matter with MobiGames?  (And I don’t buy Langdell’s "they wanted me to do it" defense.  It doesn’t wash.)

    Why can’t anyone find ONE SINGLE GAME on the market that EDGE Games has purportedly brought to market in the last few years?

    When is that elusive 4th issue of "Edge" the comic book by Steven Grant and Gil Kane going to hit store shelves?  (I’ve been waiting since the ’90s!)

    Where can I buy copies of Mythora, BattlePods or Pengu?  When were they released to stores?

    When can we see screenshots of Mythora 2, which is due to release in Fall 2009?

    What do video games have to do with a movie about Anthony Hopkins and a man-eating bear?

    What exactly did Tim’s company have to do with the development of the game "The Edge of Twilight," which had been in development for two years before entering into an "amicable" licensing agreement with Tim?

    I’d really love to see answers to any of these questions, but Langdell seems to keep ducking them.


  8. mona.adele says:

    On a peripheral note, I was so confounded by the fact that Langdell and Co. freaked out about the publication of settlement communications, going so far as to claim that disclosure to third parties was unlawful, and then subsequently PUBLISHED ALL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATIONS that I had to write about it.

     PROTIP: "without prejudice" means what it says– the communications may not be used to prejudice either party in a court action. It doesn’t necessarily render the communication confidential. 



  9. Meohfumado says:

    I have nothing to add to this conversation other than that Tim Langdell is a douche.


    There…it had to be said.


    "You know what I wish? I wish all the scum of the Earth had one throat and I had my hands about it."

  10. Wormdundee says:

    Indeed, it’s classic trademark squatter material. He sees a company make a game that contains the word Edge. He tries to warn EA that he’ll sue them and they rightly blow him off because he’s full of shit. From what I understand, Mirror’s Edge does not infringe on Edge because it is obviously significantly different from the Edge trademark. There’s also the fact that Edge has never released a GAME called Edge, it’s simply the name of their company. I’m fairly sure this means that they no longer have the rights to that trademark in the context of a game, only in the context of a game COMPANY.

    So, Langdell realizes that EA is big enough to not bow down to him, so he quickly makes up a game called Mirror’s, which will be marketed as Mirror’s (by) Edge (yes seriously, he put the ‘by’ in parentheses). This is a blatant infringement of EA’S trademark, and yet he tries to use it in the opposite direction. I guarantee that this game doesn’t even exist in any code form, or if it does, it’s extremely basic.

    As for the Edge thing. I think it will turn out that he no longer has the rights to EDGE in a videogame context, because he’s never used that trademark for anything. I don’t think Mobigame’s responses were well thought out, and they are definitely very agressive, but I think most of the blame here should be put on Langdell.

  11. Ayonvox says:

    One thing that I found interesting while browsing the "Mirros Edge" controversy, EDGE claims that EA told them there wouldnt be any confusion between Mirrors by EDGE and Mirrors Edge. I can see this claim being accurate especially since I have yet to see anything on this supposed Mirrors By EDGE game. However they then report that they have been flooded with emails stating that people are confused. I remember the announcement page for that game and it litterally had MIRRORS and EDGE right below it with the "by" very small and off to the side. It seems to me that they went out of their way to cause that confusion. I have never seen a company (especially with a common word name) advertise a game as ZOMBIE VALVE or RADIOACTIVE BIOWARE. Reguardless of what other games may or may not be coming out that are similar, that in itself seems confusing. Just a thought.

  12. Speeder says:

    Btw: Tim has also a restraining order against him in favour of a Actress that he claims that was his client.


    Also Tim once tried to use EDGE as a trademark about space tourism… It was so funny as hell his website that when people laughed at it on internet, he took it down… Happily there are some mirrors around (altough now I don’t remember any)

  13. Neeneko says:

    Which part of what I said is ‘not true’.

    They are claiming X.

    I can not find instance of X.

    I left the door open for us not being able to search out these games because if they were working mobel there are kiosks that allow you to put games on cell phone.  I worked on one years ago called the NReach (probably rebranded) and can not find any web refernces to the kiosk OR the games that were on it.. but money was indeed made, you could walk up to a kiosk, select a game/app/ringtone, and it would be downloaded to your phone.  This was years ago so the big stores had not been established yet.

    The PC and console options however should be findable so I can not think of a plausible way that they published in those markets yet left no trace.

  14. Defenestrator says:

    Not true.

    If you go on EDGE’s web site they claim they are producing and HAVE PRODUCED games for:


    PC, XBox 360, Nintendo Wii, PS3, iPhone, Mobile games.

    Nobody can find one instance of any of this being true.

  15. Neeneko says:

    They are claiming that they produce games for moble devices.

    I have not found any instance of this being true.  So they are either (a) lieing or (b) refering to a moble market that is not easily googled.

  16. Defenestrator says:

    Can you point out to me one game that they have published in the last 5 years, 10 years, 15 years that operates in any market much less the same market as "Edge" from MobiGames?

  17. Neeneko says:

    Heh.  I guess that hearing officer did not feel they were close enough.

    Is there a way to tell when this was filed?  5 years seems like a rather long time to wait and would normally invalidate the case right there.  If I recall correctly, the window to defend a trademark is pretty small.

    But gratz on finding an offical 3rd party document.  One thing this rather frustrating debate tends to be lacking is 3rd party facts.

    Looks like this site also has a good spread of historical documents:

  18. Adrian Lopez says:

    "… the mark isn’t designating the origin of anything his company is producing– the only commercial activity he’s involved in is using litigation threats to collect licensing fees."

    Exactly. If I made a game and called it "Nintendo", the last thing Nintendo would do is to try and get me to license their trademark for 10% of my profits. They’d tell me to stop (and they’d be in the right, for their trademark — unlike Langdell’s — is actually famous), but they’d never stoop to extorting licensing fees from me and claiming to have "spawned" my game despite having nothing at all to do with it.

    As far as the "he said he said" aspect of this whole fiasco, everything I’ve read about Langdell and everything I’ve seen coming from him suggests that Mobigames is far more worthy of the benefit of the doubt here than Mr. Langdell.

  19. Neeneko says:

    *nods* it would be rather cool if this went to court, if for no other reason then it would answer some of these questions.  As you point out, trademarks dissolve if you don’t use them.  Edge claims to have been putting out games, but others have pointed out that there is no where visable to buy them.

    So unless they are going through some wierd network, or are part of a package, then they SHOULD have some kind of mention on the internet.  The best I could find were some screen shots.

  20. mona.adele says:

    Langdell registered various marks for various classes of trademark protection ranging from video games to publications to film to comic books– basically any and all things entertainment. Under U.S. trademark law, you need to be specific and honest about certain things to have a valid registered mark: a) whether you intend to use it in commerce or whether you already are using it in commerce, and in either case when the use in commerce commence; b) that the classes you list are actually classes that are or will use the actual mark. To maintain trademark protection in a particular class of product or service (e.g., comic books), you would actually have to produce comic books under that Mark. 

        Langdell’s company, Edge Games, hasn’t produced an original product in something like 15 years. Furthermore, he’s only ever produced games. His "claim" to the classes of trademarks he’s registered is based on his company licensing the word to third parties for use in their products without those products having any connection with his own company. In other words, the mark isn’t designating the origin of anything his company is producing– the only commercial activity he’s involved in is using litigation threats to collect licensing fees.

         Now the purpose of trademark law is to designate the origin of a product so consumers can identify the quality of a product based the source. This serves the duel purpose of 1) consumer protection (which is why so much of state unfair competition law is founded on consumer protection law) and 2) protecting the property/goodwill value in the mark itself. But both rely on the entity holding the mark to actually BE the producer or provider of a product or service, or have some oversight and control over the products and services using that mark, so that the consumer can anticipate the quality and value based on the goodwill of the mark. It was never intended to give someone a property interest in a word or phrase unless consumers associate that word or phrase with the owner of the mark based on the product or service the owner provides.  

        There is very little evidence that that is the case here. While Edge Games claims that it’s been "involved" in products like the film The Edge or Mirror’s Edge, etc., there is absolutely nothing suggesting that Langdell or his company had anything to do with the production of those products, even as far as quality control. So the use of the name doesn’t have anything to do with any product or service Langdell’s company provides. If anything, it suggests that his company is taking credit for the production of these entertainment products without undergoing the burden of actually producing something.

    In short the only product or service that Langdell is providing is a license to use the word "Edge"– which isn’t a product or service at all, and which is why he’s being classified as a trademark troll. He’s squatting on a mark and the only intrinsic value that mark has is the fact that it’s a particularly common word that people want to use in their product. (Forgive the pun) It’s kind of edgy, ya know? 

    Also bear in mind– a trademark is potentially abandoned if you don’t use it in commerce for a period of 3 years domestically (US) and if you have foreign marks, at a maximum of 5 years in most other countries. US courts have held that "token" uses of the mark simply to keep the name in trade aren’t sufficient to protect a person’s rights in a trademark– so infrequently releasing a product under the mark just to say you still own it may not always work.


    It’ll be an interesting case.

  21. mona.adele says:

     The abandonment thing is kind of touch and go, but there certainly is SOME support that his rights to claim that class may come up against some pretty steep argument.

    Here’s a little food for thought:

    And if you’re curious about trademark abandonment, it really isn’t particularly clear cut:

    In the U.S. at least it’s relatively well established that a trademark owner’s control over a product terminates after the first sale: this is because to be considered in commerce for a good you have to a) affix the mark on the product; and b) transport or sell that product. Once a product is in commerce it’s already been affixed with the mark. 

    So used products usually don’t count. 

    Furthermore, you have to transport or sell that product. What product has Edge Games transported or sold in the past several years? 

  22. Inimical says:

    He owns the rights to it in a gaming setting. It’s no different than Bungie/Microsoft (whoever owns it) putting a trademark on "Halo." You will never see a different company release a game called Halo because it’s a trademark.

    Personally, I don’t agree with being able to hold rights to a word, but when you’re in a business like this person is, it’s not about agreeing or disagreeing, it’s about protecting your IP. Having read his statement, it certainly seems like that’s all he’s trying to do.


    Edit: Having read the comments below, though, it does certainly seem like he’s a troll. I wasn’t aware of the laws that some people were describing. So yes, this guy is a doucher, but if any other company did it I could see why.

  23. Pirce says:

    Not only that but you can’t trademark common words like that. He can no more hold the rights to the word edge than he could to the word tree or cloud.

    Eggy Weggs

  24. Inimical says:

    Judging from the brief perusal I just had of some of those documents, it looks like their trademark doesn’t include any variation of "Edge" or words in combination with "Edge". That, I think, is reasonable.

  25. Neeneko says:

    *nods* that is an area where Edge’s story starts to fall appart.  If there is any way to purchace any of the newer games they mention, I have not been able to find it.

  26. Defenestrator says:

    Here is a challenge for anyone.  If ANYONE out there can prove that EDGE Games has sold any of the games they claim to have published in the last five years ANY WHERE (Mythora, Pengu and BattlePods), I will send you a dozen chocolate chip cookies.

  27. Neeneko says:


    Though it should also be noted that the twitter feed was start in the same time scale as the gamerbeef profile and after the Edge dust up began.  While this makes it less likley that the poster is a hoax (due to the additional time/complexity) it does not eliminate it.  It is still well within the range of a single pissed off gamer.

  28. Defenestrator says:

    If you check out Carlton Holder’s Twitter feed, you will see similar comments there (in 144 words or less).

  29. Pirce says:

    It isn’t about the genre, it’s about the game harming Microsoft’s property. Okay let’s say I make a game for the gameboy. I play as an angel in charge of deliveries. I lose a shipment of halos and have to go through a series of whacky platforming adventures to find them all in the human world. The game is called halo. Now obviously it has a good reason to be called halo and it doesn’t really draw from or harm the Microsoft Halo. Does Microsoft have a bit of a case? Yes. But assuming that the other company has as much money and quality laywers as Microsoft then they have more than a decent chance of winning the case.

    Of course as a said before this is an unnessisary headache that neither company wants so of course the other company would call it "Halo Search" or somesuch.

    Okay I’ll give you another example. Trump has the term "You’re fired!" trademarked as it’s his catch phrase. This does not mean that he owns that term completely. People are still more than free to say it even in movies in the like. A boss in a show can still say it. It will come to the trademark if the boss says it the way Trump does or if he uses it as a catchphrase.

    Eggy Weggs

  30. Neeneko says:

    It is questionable if they could.  Well ok, they physically can, but Microsoft would have a legit case against them.   Trademarks apply to industreies, NOT genres.  While they could probably generate some bad press, the defending company would not have a case.

    Which would also bring up the question though, how similiar is Mobi’s game to the game(s) they developed and claim to continue to sell?

  31. Neeneko says:

    According to Edge, they dropped the 25% fee.  Which even if they had not, asking for a short term retroactive license is not unusual.   Generally you don’t say ‘oh, you were abusing our IP, but keep the money you made with it, just don’t do it anymore’.  So to be fair, it was a reasonable demand.

    According to Mobi they never recieved the email dropping the 25% requirement.

    The Edgy stuff I can’t make heads or tails of.  I can’t figure out why they went the ‘file and transfer’ route, but I don’t know all the details of international trademarks.

  32. Neeneko says:

    Yeah, the truth is probably somewhere in between.  The problem here is both sides are claiming factually differnt things, including Mobi claiming that Edge’s postings are complete fabrications and Edge claiming that Mobi is spreading false rumors about them.

    So someone is lieing, and who is lieing determines who is being the bully here.  Right now Mobi has significantly more community support so people are assuming that their version of events is correct.  I guess we will see what comes of Mobi contacting the ISP to verify their side.. which seems kinda far-fetched to me.

  33. Defenestrator says:

    The only two options that EDGE presented to Mobi Games involved EDGE getting money.

    Option one was to change the name of the game entirely and fork over 25% of all profits made under the name "Edge."

    Option two was to rename the game "Edge: an Homage to Bobby Bearing" and fork over 10% of all past, present and future profits.

    Langdell’s claim that they demanded no money because Mobi asked for a potential resolution is merely splitting hairs.

    1) EDGE (Langdell) asked Mobi Games to contact them regarding the issue so it could be resolved.

    2) Mobi Games contacted them and asked how it could be resolved.

    3) EDGE asked for money (as I outlined above).

    4) Mobi Games asked if they could rename the game to "Edgy."

    5) EDGE said, "No," and the very next day filed for the trademark of "Edgy."

    You can draw your own conclusions from this, but I don’t know how anybody can say, "Tim Langdell and EDGE Games did not demand money," when Tim Langdell and EDGE Games demanded money.


  34. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Somewhere in the mdidle the truth is awaiting the light of day. I think its a bit ture he is trolling and a bit ture hes trying to defend his whatever.

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!!

  35. Neeneko says:

    Looks like the document was only put on line a few days ago at most.

    Unfortunatly once a story is out (the Kotaku version) it tends to be hard to change people’s perceptions of events.  Cancling out initial reports is always very challenging, and Mobi is a popular (and community active) studio people want to believe them.

    There is also a strong meme/hatred of patent/trademark/copyright trolls.   It is a bit like branding someone a pedophile… regardless of the facts, the label tends to stick.

  36. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Then why is not every one talking about that?

    Simple blowing it out of properstion and focsuing on the wrong issues?

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!!

  37. JDKJ says:

    Remember back in the day when you could register the domain name http://www.mcdonald‘ even though you didn’t have anything at all to do with the fast food chain? And then sell it to the real McDonald’s for a mint? That was a good hustle while it lasted. 

  38. Neeneko says:

    *nod* which makes Halo an imperfect example, but I could not initially think of any company names that would make good game titles.

  39. Pirce says:

    We don’t see it but another company could very well put out a title called "Halo" if the name was appropriate and took nothing from the FPS we all know. For instance if a company made a biblical game about an angel trying to recover his halo then they could very well name the game as such.

    Now of course that is choppy waters and Microsoft could and likely would file suit. It would take years to settle it in court but it is likely that the angel game would be found to not be harming the "Halo" brand by using that word. This is of course assuming that it does not.

    Obviously this is a headache I doubt either company wants but the point still stands.

    Eggy Weggs

  40. Neeneko says:

    While normally I am against a lot of copyright stuff,… I am actually starting to see this guy’s point.

    Much of the ranting seem to come off as ‘how dare this company I have never heard of interfear with companies I like!’.  So Mobigames is newer, shineyer, and bigger….. if the guy had a trademark (NOT copyright) on Edge as a game brand then he has a point.

    This is why we don’t see other studios putting out games called "Halo" (even though it is also a common word).   Protecting your brand is important to studios, espessially small ones since it is so easy to have your brand completely dominated by a bigger player if you don’t protect it.  And protections are not supposed to be based off who is more popular or bigger, but instead who started using the brand name in thier industry first.

    The ‘but we are cool!’ should not be a defense.

  41. Neeneko says:

    The 25% past revenue was revenue generated while using the name, and no charge after the name change.  

    In the very next email they cut the past revenue aspect of that option completely provided MobiGames changed the name.

    And EDGE seems to feel that thier brand has value. They have products in the same space as Mobi and have 30 years of operation.   Regardless, you don’t get to take someone’s trademarks simply because you are better known then they are.

  42. Pixelantes Anonymous says:

    The troll was asking for 25% of the past revenues, if the MobiGames stopped using the Edge name.

    And 10% of past and future revenues, if MobiGames licensed the name from the troll.

    For what? That trademark has absolutely NO brand value like, for example Coca-Cola does.

    Great way of making a living…basically leeching off others’ work. Get a life.

  43. Neeneko says:

    So far all I have found in the IGDA forum is a mention of the gamerbeef comments. Plus this:


    Re: Researching Tim Langdell Re: Researching Tim Langdell
    Hi Brian,

    I would be glad to give you whatever info I can. Tim Langdell is a very fraudulent person. He is trying to claim rights to my project. I am not in business with him. I am not a partner of his and he has nothing to do with my project Teenage Wasteland. I was talking to him early on about having him do the game, but I quickly realized he did not have the capability of doing a game and his past is steeped in suspicious activity and shady business dealings. I have asked him to take my show off his site. He refuses. He is keeping it on there because he thinks if I have a pending deal with a Hollywood company (I am a Hollywood writer) they will see his site and he can try to claim rights. What he does not realize is he is infringing on my copyright and will face a severe copyright infringement suit. The guy is a creep and a coward (He won’t even pick up the phone when I call). He thinks he can strong arm me, but he does not have any idea of the people I deal with.

    I have also asked the people at GameBeefer to take down their posting, but they will not respond to me.


    I am having trouble confirming poster’s  identity though.   So hard to say if this is legit or astroturf.  There is a twitter feed for the guy that references the series (though exteranal sources have been removed).  So the question becomes, is this actually Carlton Holder?

  44. Defenestrator says:


    The article I just linked is a press release that mimics the press release at Langdell’s site for Edge Games.  Be sure to scroll all the way down to the comments section regarding this. 

    I don’t have the time, but there is a more in depth response from Carlton Holder out there (it’s in the IGDA forums) regarding this issue.  Essentially, Langdell refuses to take the content from his site down as he’s trying to bully Holder out of the copyright of his own work.

    Langdell is scum.

  45. Neeneko says:

    If he is being honest in what he is saying, it sounds more like he just does not want people using his brand for their game names.

    So no money.  No credit.  Just ‘please don’t use our name as your game’s title’

    EDGE did, I admit, offter credit/money as an option after Mobi asked how this could be resolved.  But offering multiple solutions is a far cry from extortion.    I can not judge how similiar Mobi’s Edge is to thier Bobby Bearing though.  Again this would depend on how honest EDGE is being, esp concerning people contacting them.  If the games ARE similiar in mechanics and EDGE was known for this style of game then they might have a legit gripe with someone releasing a game from thier style with thier studio name as the title.  Esp if they are still selling those games in the same market as Mobi.

  46. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Pretty much this goes against the meaning of CP/TM, you build a unique property or idea and protect it via CP/TM, this grabs a word or idea out of the air and locks it up for revenue grabbing.

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!!

  47. vellocet says:

     I don’t see how that letter makes them sound any better.  This is NOT about the name of the game.  This is about Langdell and his company trying to get money/credit on something that they had nothing to do with.  By taking they’re game off the iTunes store, they have essential destroyed a game that a small independent company created (possibly causing irreparable damage).

    Langdell seems to be now holding the game hostage unless Mobigames gives his company at least some credit having to do with them (which once again he has nothing to do with).  EDGE (the company) had nothing to do with this game, yet they want to be able to put it in with their "library" of games.

  48. E. Zachary Knight says:

    It is not a copyright. It is a trademark. Big difference.

    A trademark or trade mark[1] is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities.

    Copyright gives the author of an original work exclusive right for a certain time period in relation to that work, including its publication, distribution and adaptation, after which time the work is said to enter the public domain.

    He registered a trademark for the word Edge in connection with gaming. The real question is how deep did his trademark go in its coverage.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  49. Magic says:

    I’m not sure who to believe. Langdell still seems like a ***t of a copyright troll (I really, really want to know the truth about how far a common word can be copyrighted) but, hate him or not, his response on that page is well put together.

  50. ZippyDSMlee says:

    If one can put a lock on generic trems and iedas it will destory media.

    Becuse of what CP/IP has become the people should be allowed to anything with it as long as it dose not invole a profit. Allowing greater deeper critisims,reviews,parody and genreal fair use will only create more thigns the CP/IP owner conglomerants can take and make money off of.

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!!

Comments are closed.