Edge or Edgy: The Clash of Two Game Makers - Update

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Malygris:
but the uncomfortable truth is that he has a legitimate case.

Bull. Shit.

Tim's offer should really be accepted.

Ive been reading about this thing for a loooooong time now...

after looking both ways i have simply come to the conclusion that they are both being dicks about this whole thing.

Yes a claim to a word with little work to throw behind the trademark is shady, its legal if not necessarily right, but i have no desire to go on an internet crusade about it.

But Mobigames...after reading this article it sounds very much like they were being dicks to. If their lawyer knew about the infringement and yet did nothing about it, while knowing the risks, well at that point its every man for himself.

Also, imo the renaming to Edgy sounded like a decent proposal actually. After all if your options are, change your name or get your ass ridden about it, id change it.

Mobigames' Edge did have some hype going behind it, and one of the excuses i have heard is that they didn't want to change the name in order to avoid confusion. However, if the problem is you keep the name then get pulled form a store and not make money, or change, have confusion, but make money anyway then id change the name.

In the end I think they both need to lay off the press and settle this. Its gotten pretty stupid and has now defamed both Edge games and Mobigames. At least in my mind.

If he owns the trademark "Edge of twilight" does this mean he can now sue the makers of that "Twilight" game that was reported a couple of weeks ago?

Interesting if slightly threadbare on the facts take on the situation. It seems strange that Andy neglected to mention that it's not so clear cut given there's serious doubt as to whether Mr Langdell *is* in fact legally within his rights.

Yes, he's entitled to enforce the trademark legally but, and this is a pretty important but, he also has to be actively using said trademark and producing work under it. The last Edge Games release that can be actively traced is a BREW port of Bobby Bearing. From 2003. That's 6 years ago and in the meantime, no products appear to have been produced. What he has laid claim to being involved in, it would seem, the authors and IP holders have little awareness of. Naturally, I'm going to assume that before the article went live painting Langdell as a victim this information was checked, right? The stuff on the IGDA forums where someone has been in touch with the IP holders who've made it clear they've not made any deals with Langdell, that he's not produced their work or as far as they're aware ever had anything to do with it, right?

Pretty important stuff before you go saying "the uncomfortable truth is he has a legitimate case" when -that very point- is in question. Unless you've evidence to the contrary and everyone else is lying, of course. Perhaps Andy knows where we can pick up and purchase some of these products as I'm sure the actual IP holders would love to know. It's also worth noting that the developers of Bobby Bearing (the original version) have mentioned that they don't believe Tim owns the rights to it anyway.

Throw in the massive weight of evidence from developers and people who've worked with or alongside Langdell and it seems disingenuous in the extreme to come out and paint him as an unwitting victim in matters. Regardless of the articles claims, it's abundantly clear that for the best part of 30 years one might be able to safely assume that perhaps Mr Langdell isn't entirely honest in his dealings if reports are to be believed. Allegations ranging from not paying developers to not paying for stands at computer shows to claiming rights to IP that's not his to lay claim to, it's an unhappy picture of the man that gets painted from people within the industry who have absolutely no reason to lie.

Also, worth checking the evidence supplied by Mr Langdell to the trademark office over the years. Some of it is intriguingly different to the actual product. Or perhaps Andy can explain away the faked Edge Mag covers too?

I'll admit, I'm completely boggled by this article. It brings nothing new to the table but (if I'm being generous) a willful attempt at Devils Advocacy that relies on ignorance of proven fact and public record to be believed 100%.

And as for Edge/Edgy - why should Mobigames have accepted Tim's "generous" offer? If it's the case that he truly has no right to the name then they've just played into his hands and strengthened any battles he may have against the next person thus perpetuating what could (at this time "possibly") be a wrongness. If they did change the games name to Edgy then what possible right does he have to register it for them, to lay claim to a trademark he doesn't even own relating to a game that's also absolutely NOTHING to do with him?

It's also disingenuous to suggest that Mobigames *should* have informed Langdell about them registering Edgy. It's not his business and he doesn't need to be informed. Do Mobigames need to inform him when they're going the toilet too?

All that without going in to how Mr Langdell would have to prove that there would be confusion in the eyes of the public between his branding and Mobigames actual game. That'd certainly be an interesting one to see played out... oh wait, he's accused them of stealing from a considerably different game on the grounds that it's of the same perspective and you hit a few switches. Bingo, I'm sure you'll agree.

All told, a depressing take that seems to want to ignore any evidence for the sake of a contrarian position. I'm not sure what it was supposed to achieve, but congratulations, if nothing else it's made the ever evolving public statement of Mr Langdell. Something to be proud of, I'm sure.

Another:

Also, imo the renaming to Edgy sounded like a decent proposal actually. After all if your options are, change your name or get your ass ridden about it, id change it.

Just to clear this up as it's been mentioned a few times. Renaming to Edgy still continued to come with "an ass riding" as Tim's offer meant that -he- would hold the trademark to Edgy. Regardless of whether there'd be any money changing hands, he'd *still* have a hand in a product he had no business with beyond a trademark dispute.

If someone can explain to me how that's even remotely a good offer, I'd love to hear it.

Lemme just pitch my two cents:

Many other common names are trademarked - Apple, Blackberry, Blizzard, Electronic Arts, Take 2, etc etc.

For the record, I didn't even know a game company named "Edge" existed until this whole debacle started. Comparing his company to these giants is just plain wrong. If only I could play Diablo 2 online, I'll send him a screenshot of my character named "Edgeworth", wielding "Edgeworth's Edge Edgebow" (this item could actually exist).

This article makes vague references to the "research" performed in creating it, but I can't find a single statement there that wasn't already included in Edge Games' "Open Letter" page, and the editorial reflects that page's views also. Are we to believe any original research went into the writing of this article, or is it just a recapitulation of the author's acceptance of the Open Letter's content? Bear in mind, this is an Open Letter which Mobigame's lawyers have stated contains several total fabrications.

No offence to the writer, but the only research you've seem to have done is read Langdell's open letter, which is full of misinformation. People on this forum have already pointed out other bits of research that are easily available so I dunno how you managed to miss some of this.

... This article is wrong. This is just really really wrong. There are basic facts wrong here that others have already pointed out, and... ugh.

Say, hypothetically, numerous banks purchased toxic assets and caused a worldwide collapse of the financial system as we know it... and then they proceeded to pay themselves bonuses with taxpayer bailout money. It's "legal," of course, but that simply makes it even more heinously unethical. Yes, Langdell has a "case" - and that's the source of the outrage, that he has manipulated and distorted the intent of trademark law to the point that his clearly unethical actions have some semblance of legality.

I seriously hope there's a revision of this article forthcoming.

If he has to defend his legal trademark then surely he has to take action against "Mirror's Edge" as well?

Yeah I don't think you should be able to trademark common words. A collection of words maybe.

Copyright law is way to complicated.

GethinPetrelli:

Pallindromemordnillap:
I read this, and I read the points that are pro-Langdell, but I still say he is being an idiot. Yes he may own the rights to "Edge games" or "The Edge" or whatever his copyright covers exactly, and yes he can draw comparisons between Apple and Blizzard who also have normal words copyrighted. But he misses the point that Blizzard don't sue every weatherman who mentions that particular meteorological phenomenon. This person has called their game Edge. Nothing alludes to Edge games. But he sues them anyway. It's just a pointless piece of corporate bullishness

It doesn't work like that. When you copyright something you prevent the use of a certain word within a certain area of the market. If I made a company that sold socks and called it fluffy (I have no idea why this was the first idea that came to mind) it would be copyrighted within the clothing industry. This means no one else can use the word "fluffy" to sell clothes, but they could use it to sell food or technology or whatever the hell else they want as long as it isn't clothes. The main reason is to prevent brand confusion (people buying the wrong thing or using a better known product to advertise their own by using the others brand name). So Blizzard haven't copyrighted the word Blizzard just it's use withtin the games industry. The same can be said of EDGE, you could sell edge razorblades or edge socks or edge tables, just not any edge games. If you did EDGE have to legally defend their copyright or they forfeit it and lose out on money advertising etc.

Don't get me wrong I haven't picked a side because to be completely honest I've just come back from holiday and have only just heard about this entire thing.

In that case I point out, as many others have, that Langdell didn't sue Mirror's Edge. They were using his term, right there in the title

Langdell awful lawful
Edge of insanity
Mirrors Mirrors
Smoke and Mirrors
(a game by EDGE)

Mobigames just give in
Mobigames you can't win
You make winner games
He makes winner lawsuits

This article is entitled "The Clash of Two Game Makers", but Langdell is not a game maker. He has no products in development and has produced nothing in the last five years. With the possible exception of Bobby Bearing (in any case developed and published by others), EDGE Games has no products since 1994 that can be purchased. Every single product pushed on his website has turned out to be imaginary. His claimed connections (Teenage Wasteland, Mythoria, Edge Comics) all turn out to be bogus on investigation. There is also very worrying evidence about Tim's court submissions in support of the US registered trademark Edge.

Check the thread at http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?threadid=35923&pagenumber=50.

Tim doesn't have a trademark to the word Edge because to have a trademark you have to trade, and he isn't doing that. He just has a shill website with fake products, and you seem to have fallen for it.

Capo Taco:
Langdell awful lawful
Edge of insanity
Mirrors Mirrors
Smoke and Mirrors
(a game by EDGE)

Mobigames just give in
Mobigames you can't win
You make winner games
He makes winner lawsuits

He's got a terrible record in court. Read some of the transcripts. Pretty damn hilarious reading.

EDGE GAMES vs NAMCO (SOULEDGE)

Edge Games claim to have released a game called Souledge in 1988, which stayed on sale till around 1992.

NO ONE has ever heard of this game, this game he claimed as evidence in A COURT OF LAW as part of his case against Namco. In fact so few people have heard of this game that even Edge Games forgot to add it to their list of releases on their website.

The result of that case was that the courts fined Edge Games 1000 which they had to pay to Namco.

That there's a winning formula for a company that has the right to fight for their trademark. What trademark?

the1ultimate:
If he has to defend his legal trademark then surely he has to take action against "Mirror's Edge" as well?

Yeah I don't think you should be able to trademark common words. A collection of words maybe.

Copyright law is way to complicated.

Don't get copyright and trademark mixed up, they're very different beasts.

Also a trademark isn't just a word, it's a mark, often part word, part look. This is partly the way that some words can be used in many places, because the consumer sees the logo and the look of the mark as much as they see the actual word.

image

image

Zero confusion there from the consumer.

p.s. Also as stated, you have to be trading or about to trade in order to hold a trademark. Can someone show where Edge Games have been trading?

AmrasCalmacil:
Interesting to hear another side of the story, certainly after Tim Langdell even got a lot of serious hate from the Escapist community.

He really deserves it, the word "Edge" is so common I could probably go to any game store and find maybe 20 titles with Edge in it, I don't see Langdell going after them. Maybe he just hates the french, and the indie. Prick..

Jinxey:

Why go for Edge of Twilight and Edgy instead of Mirrors Edge? because he knew, legally, EA could beat him in a fair fight. If he was truly looking to protect his trademark and had a valid case he'd take on EA as well to protect his IP, isn't that supposed to be all he cares about?

While I agree with what you said, Jinxey, I feel like I should point out that Tim did actually oppose EA's registration of the 'Mirror's Edge' trademark. Shortly after it was filed in 2007, a letter from Edge Games arrived at the US Trademark Office, stating that they were 'horrified' that they would grant EA a trademark that so clearly infringes on the 'world famous' Edge name. Some time later, someone at the Trademark office said something along the lines of 'Oops. You're right. Trademark suspended', and EA sent in a massive response, citing several documents that highlighted the lack of similarity between the two trademarks, and how there wouldn't be any actual confusion. To this date, this has been ignored, and the trademark for Mirror's Edge remains suspended, so it actually belongs to no-one. Langdell has, as a result, tried to 'settle amicably' with EA over the issue (In the process attempting to cause brand confusion on his website by announcing 'MIRRORS a game from EDGE'), but it seems like they're not taking his threats seriously.

With regards to Andy's article, I don't know if anyone has pointed out the factual inaccuracies, but I figured I'd bring them up:

This much, however, is clear: A few months after the game was launched, Langdell attempted to contact Mobigame to inform the company of its infringement. When those efforts went unanswered, he contacted Apple instead, presenting it with proof of Edge Games' trademarks. Apple's decision to sidestep any potential legal entanglements by pulling the game from the iTunes App Store finally got Mobigame's attention and that's where the fun begins.

Not true, and this much is even stated in Langdell's Public Statement, from which most of the information in the article seems to have been gleaned. Mobigame didn't respond for quite some time, true (According to Papazian, they wanted to figure out where they stood on the issue before making a move, because Tim's initial letters were quite aggressive and threatening, as you can read in his Public Statement), but it wasn't Apple's decision to remove the game from the App store the first time; that was entirely Mobigame's decision. Apple did pull it at a later date, but the 'fun' had already long begun by this point.

This is an absolutely shocking piece of journalism. There is NO evidence whatsoever that Langdell has a prima facie case, so the writer's main statements in Langdell's defence are in the first instance factually wrong (as are several other facts, already noted by others). There's also no mention of the fact that Langdell wanted the "Edgy" name attached to the suffix "An Homage To Bobby Bearing", a scandalous and wildly unfounded demand that Papazian was entirely right to reject.

Langdell's trademark, if it can still be said to legally exist given the company's lack of output, refers to the publisher. If Papazian was trying to call his COMPANY "Edge Interactive" or something similar, Langdell would be justified in taking action. But nobody is ever going to mistake a game called Edge for the product of a company called Edge, which nobody's ever heard of in the first place because it hasn't developed a game in about 20 years. Electronic Arts doesn't call its games "Electronic Arts 5".

This article is so unbalanced and inaccurate it should probably be removed on the grounds that it amounts to libel against David Papazian.

Kross:

The whole thing just smells. Having legit products around it doesn't make the company any less shady or more right, it just makes it harder to dig out the scheming from the legal entanglement around it.

This is what I was thinking when reading the article, just because he does some legitimate business, does not make his legal claims any less dubious.

roskelld:

He's got a terrible record in court. Read some of the transcripts. Pretty damn hilarious reading.

EDGE GAMES vs NAMCO (SOULEDGE)

Edge Games claim to have released a game called Souledge in 1988, which stayed on sale till around 1992.

NO ONE has ever heard of this game, this game he claimed as evidence in A COURT OF LAW as part of his case against Namco. In fact so few people have heard of this game that even Edge Games forgot to add it to their list of releases on their website.

Um...I think that was the original Soul Calibur, and lots of people have heard of it - its just not an "EDGE GAMES" product. That alone shows how pathetic this whole charade is.

You misunderstand, Tim Langdell told the hearing that he'd developed a game called "Souledge" in 1998 and sold it until 1992, and therefore Namco's game couldn't be called "Souledge".

Even Edge Games' bibliography doesn't include any "Souledge" game.

alexwhiteside:
You misunderstand, Tim Langdell told the hearing that he'd developed a game called "Souledge" in 1998 and sold it until 1992, and therefore Namco's game couldn't be called "Souledge".

Even Edge Games' bibliography doesn't include any "Souledge" game.

Really, well the only information I could find on the matter was that it had something to do with the name, so I presumed it had something to do with the "EDGE" part of the name. Regardless, their opposition failed miserably, yet Namco had already decided to change the name to SoulBlade.

There are loads of companies that have trademarked 'edge' in various different areas. I think it's about context and the way you write it (eg: if a game came out with the word blizzard in it and it looked like the blue Blizzard Entertainment logo, then Blizzard could complain, written otherwise i think it'd be fine).

I think Mobigames should quickly trademark 'edgy' now since EDGE have abandoned it, just in case. And it'd be funny:

Word Mark EDGY
Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer game software
Filing Date May 16, 2009
Owner (APPLICANT) Edge Games Inc CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 530 South Lake Avenue, Ste 171 Pasadena CALIFORNIA 91101
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Abandonment Date August 3, 2009

(NB: removed unnecessary lines like serial number and filing basis)

One of the particularly interesting things on the Edge Games website is its claim to be developing a PS3 game called Racers.

http://www.the--edge.com/edgegames/racers.htm

Now take a look at the screenshots of the as-yet-unreleased PS3 game "Voltage" being produced by Lexicon Entertainment:

http://www.gamershell.com/ps3/voltage/screenshots.html

Wow! Langdell should totally sue!

I done what the article invited me to do ... Google Bobby Bearing

The first 4 hits refer to retro sites and old news about Your Sinclair and a review in there, then there is a GameFaq entry... with no data except a very flattering description.

I quote:
State of the art 3D action puzzle game featuring the realistic game play of a real rolling ball. You play Bobby who must hunt through a maze of traps and puzzles to find his lost brothers and bring them home. Beware the evil black ball bearings as you roll around this fabulous virtual 3D world. A game that can be played for a few moments, or remain a challenge for weeks or months. Suitable for all player experience levels.

But no other data , no messages on the board, no FAQ's ...nothing

Few hits down the Google page , and there was a review...played on a Nokia 6610. Developed by Omnigence , which is a confusing mess of micro developers from Poland and Russia (as far as I could tell).

... then more retro links.

Hardly a convincing argument of the great and famous Edge trademark that is a prominent developer.

I would of agreed that Langdell is allowed to defend his mark, but while we only have his and Mobigames word on what transpired in those e-mail conversations ... we can see a lot of questionable actions by Edge Games, games that they claim but the original IP owners of that game for some reason seem to refute that claim. Claims to Films...where the IP holder is frantically telling everyone that Edge has no claim whatsoever...and of course the famous, MIRRORS a game by EDGE.
These acts of apparent and alleged duplicity makes one wonder about the authenticity of any of Edge Games statements... after all it seem they have a alleged precedence for obscuring facts.

Somthing else that doesnt make sense... I cant see how the events could of occured as depicted by Edge Games, it makes no sense logically that a small developer like Mobigames would act so beligerent when told it was infringing on a IP (which it was, like it or not), and further still refusing a reasonable offer to rename the game with no penalties.
Mobigames would have more to gain by renaming the game at that stage, and reaping the benefits from the successfull game, unless there was a good reason why not to change the name... say a licence penalty, or a legal loophole where they (Mobigames) may lose the right to the game, or forced to allow others to claim involvement to the game development.
To me it Edge Games version sounds like Edge Games was being so nice and friendly and the evil Mobigames was just refusing all reasonable and helpfull attempts by Edge Games to amicably resolve the issue.

Word Mark EDGE OF EXTINCTION
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer game software. FIRST USE: 20000310. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20000310
Filing Date March 3, 2000
Published for Opposition March 19, 2002
Registration Date June 17, 2003
Owner (REGISTRANT) Cybernet Systems Corporation CORPORATION DELAWARE 727 Airport Blvd. Ann Arbor MICHIGAN 48108
Attorney of Record John G. Posa
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

I looked up Edge of Extinction and got this. Not sure if EDGE or Tim Langdell has anything to do with it so those rumours might just be an internet ruse.

(NB: these are from the US trademarks office since they were the first one i came across with a search engine :p )

With regard to Mythora 2, the other title Edge Games claims to be developing:

http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=550061628305c61393ebe8d3154d9508&postid=229819&highlight=From+XXXXXX#post229819

I have been given permission to publish this comment from Marcin Michael, former head of NARWA the developers of Mythora, which Tim claims he published.... (at a time when his company was suspended)

quote:
From: XXXXXX

To: XXXXXX

Subject: Re: Tim Langdell
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:34:25 -0400

I've been able to investigate the case.

Tim was dealing with a group of freelancers from Poland long time ago, when Mythora was in initial development stage.
We (as NAWAR Corp. that time) have took control over this project and hired those freelancers.
The IP has been acquired by NAWAR and some of those original creators still work for us.

What they say is that there was no agreement between freelancers and Tim, and they were shopping around many different publishers to secure the development and publishing deal. Tim was never involved in production of Mythora. However, since we are not in touch with all the initial creators I cannot firmly confirm either there was any formal relation between Tim and some freelancer or not.

We have producer and released Mythora (also known as The Banished) in a few countries. The IP rights to Mythora have been assigned to FRONTLINE Studios in 2005, as FRONTLINE took control over all NAWAR's entertainment projects and IP's.

Either NAWAR or FRONTLINE wasn't in any agreement nor dealings with Tim or EDGE.

Please let me know if you need any more information. We are happy to help to resolve this case.

Best regards,

-Marcin

so,like Teenage Wastland Tim is claiming credit for a product he does not actually own and has no rights to pubish. The IP belongs to Frontline and they granted licenses to 2 companies to sell in Russia and France...neither companies were Edge.

Tim also claims he 'spawned' Edge magazine. Apparently Future publishings legal department are looking into this but are refusing to comment at the moment :D

The reason game journos always s*** the bed when they write about video game lawsuits is because there is by definition two sides to the story. Having underdogs and championing causes makes for good reading, but this isn't a comic book. You don't want wake up, have some coffee, and get slapped with a huge trademark lawsuit. They're required to warn you that it's coming. Any company that bothers to Google a few terms should spot a game company quickly. If you have a problem with the trademark system, go bitch at the Feds.

The point being, in this brand of litigation, they're always both being dicks.

D_987:

roskelld:

He's got a terrible record in court. Read some of the transcripts. Pretty damn hilarious reading.

EDGE GAMES vs NAMCO (SOULEDGE)

Edge Games claim to have released a game called Souledge in 1988, which stayed on sale till around 1992.

NO ONE has ever heard of this game, this game he claimed as evidence in A COURT OF LAW as part of his case against Namco. In fact so few people have heard of this game that even Edge Games forgot to add it to their list of releases on their website.

Um...I think that was the original Soul Calibur, and lots of people have heard of it - its just not an "EDGE GAMES" product. That alone shows how pathetic this whole charade is.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-challenge-decision-results/o33702.pdf

Page 3 -

"He also claims to have used the specific trade mark
"SOULEDGE" in the United Kingdom and in that connection provides details of sales of a
game called Souledge which was launched in 1988 and which, he says, remains in the
companies active catalogue of products for sale. The evidence of use of that game is dated
Spring 1988, December 1990 and there are some invoices, dated January 7 1992 and August
28 1991."

L.B. Jeffries:
The reason game journos always s*** the bed when they write about video game lawsuits is because there is by definition two sides to the story.

But between the two sides there can be a right and a wrong one. It's not comic book dualism every time someone wins a lawsuit, is it?

Refusing to acknowledge a clear disparity between two sides can itself be an expression of journalistic cowardice--or sheer, willful contrarianism.

L.B. Jeffries:
in this brand of litigation, they're always both being dicks.

Is that a judgment or a refusal to make one? Dismiss all disputes, then?

Ginning up some evidence that all parties are in some way to blame is always a move meant to give advantage to the aggressor.

D_987:

alexwhiteside:
You misunderstand, Tim Langdell told the hearing that he'd developed a game called "Souledge" in 1998 and sold it until 1992, and therefore Namco's game couldn't be called "Souledge".

Even Edge Games' bibliography doesn't include any "Souledge" game.

Really, well the only information I could find on the matter was that it had something to do with the name, so I presumed it had something to do with the "EDGE" part of the name. Regardless, their opposition failed miserably, yet Namco had already decided to change the name to SoulBlade.

Namco changed the name because they knew how long a court battle could take to play out. Another of Edge Games' fine tactics, apply for extensions and delay court hearings so that the defendants product remains off the shelf and earning no money.

This is why so many people give in at the early stages, they can't afford a long drawn out court battle, not just because of the court costs, (Edge Games don't want it to go that far) but because of the lost revenue of not having a title on the shelves for that time.

Namco decided to play ball on both fronts, they changed the name to allow them to release the game without problem, but they also continued with the court case in order to bring justice to the situation.

Look at the date of the final court hearing: 2002. When was Souledge (Soulblade) launched? '98
See, that's how long they'd have probably been forced off the shelf if they didn't go ahead with the name change; and that's how long court cases can be drawn out for.

It really plays into the hands of the 'so called' trademark owner.

And reading that thing, it's like deja fucking vu. That apparently, there were 'many people' contacting Langdell who were confusing Edge and Souledge. This is the same reasoning that is being given for the current 'Edge' issue.

Thinking about it for about 3 seconds, though, it doesn't even make any sense. Are there any companies that consistently release games that have the name of the publisher in them? Apart from Narcissism Games, of course.

Ray Huling:

L.B. Jeffries:
The reason game journos always s*** the bed when they write about video game lawsuits is because there is by definition two sides to the story.

But between the two sides there can be a right and a wrong one. It's not comic book dualism every time someone wins a lawsuit, is it?

Refusing to acknowledge a clear disparity between two sides can itself be an expression of journalistic cowardice--or sheer, willful contrarianism.

A right one and a wrong one to who? When two people are in a lawsuit, they both think they're right. That's the problem with trying to apply morality to a legal issue. Both sides are explaining how they are right. All someone is applying is their own view of the situation, which typically just means picking a side.

Ray Huling:

L.B. Jeffries:
in this brand of litigation, they're always both being dicks.

Is that a judgment or a refusal to make one? Dismiss all disputes, then?

Ginning up some evidence that all parties are in some way to blame is always a move meant to give advantage to the aggressor.

That's a refusal to buy the victim bulls*** Mobigames is spinning. Langdell may be a trademark troll, but I'm not going to listen to someone cry foul when they had due warning in a legal issue that their lawyers knew full well how to operate.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here