Edge or Edgy: Part Two

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

mlkjhgfds:

HobbesMkii:

Unless, of course, The Escapist views siding with a member of the International Game Developers Association's Board of Directors as potentially beneficial. Shows they've got the IGDA's back. Sure, it doesn't score them shit from Edge, because Edge makes nothing. But the IGDA distanced themselves from the call for Langdell's removal (implying a somewhat support of their Board Member, if not outright). You're viewing gains as purely being Single Party to Single Party. You're completely ignoring the fact that they can generate goodwill industry wide by being industry shills.

The IGDA did call a board meeting on TL's removal, unless I missed something. (didn't go real smooth though, seems the IGDA elected members were both confused and unwilling)

-> http://igdaed.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/special-meeting-update/ There we go.

Industry shills - naaaah. Come on.

Evil scheming editors?

Seriously?

Who called them evil or scheming? I'm just saying it makes strategic sense, since clearly the IGDA didn't feel the need to question the ethics of their board member. It's kinda a thing in journalism. You throw some positive press in one direction and later on, people reward you. And other people know you're worthy of being rewarded. And then maybe down the line that close access allows you to learn the true story they forgot they didn't want you to know.

This is really just a very minor skirmish that we're making a big deal about. It's just some guy complaining over the copyright of the title on a freaking iPhone app, for pete's sake! In the world of videogames, it's about as important as the seventeenth enemy you shoot in an FPS. But, the point is that because it's minor but with big attention, The Escapist can appear to choose one side over the other, (not outright, of course) with relatively little fallout (it's not like they're choosing XBox over PS3, here). This isn't "evil" or "scheming." I never once said that. Is it shady journalism? I feel it is (you seem to feel different), but hey, again, it's an old school tactic. Everybody does it. That makes it okay, right? I mean, I'm not saying they're always industry shills (although, except on some Tuesdays, I have a hard time remembering instances where they're not), but that here's a case where it's easy and relatively "okay" to be shills.

CoverYourHead:
This case is such a great drama, someone should make a T.V. show about it.

I don't know if I trust either party, something stinks here.

But if they did, they'd sue for using Edge.

HobbesMkii:

mlkjhgfds:

The IGDA did call a board meeting on TL's removal, unless I missed something. (didn't go real smooth though, seems the IGDA elected members were both confused and unwilling)

-> http://igdaed.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/special-meeting-update/ There we go.

Industry shills - naaaah. Come on.

Evil scheming editors?

Seriously?

Who called them evil or scheming? I'm just saying it makes strategic sense, since clearly the IGDA didn't feel the need to question the ethics of their board member. It's kinda a thing in journalism. You throw some positive press in one direction and later on, people reward you. And other people know you're worthy of being rewarded. And then maybe down the line that close access allows you to learn the true story they forgot they didn't want you to know.

This is really just a very minor skirmish that we're making a big deal about. It's just some guy complaining over the copyright of the title on a freaking iPhone app, for pete's sake! In the world of videogames, it's about as important as the seventeenth enemy you shoot in an FPS. But, the point is that because it's minor but with big attention, The Escapist can appear to choose one side over the other, (not outright, of course) with relatively little fallout (it's not like they're choosing XBox over PS3, here). This isn't "evil" or "scheming." I never once said that. Is it shady journalism? I feel it is (you seem to feel different), but hey, again, it's an old school tactic. Everybody does it. That makes it okay, right? I mean, I'm not saying they're always industry shills (although, except on some Tuesdays, I have a hard time remembering instances where they're not), but that here's a case where it's easy and relatively "okay" to be shills.

Alright, you didn't say anything about evil scheming - I did.

If it's such a good deal ("little fallout"), why are ALL the other gaming zines/communities (that I know of) jumping on the hate wagon? They get Indie Points, sure, but I can't imagine the Escapist editors thinking "we got a positive review of Braid somewhere, let's piss on the indies now".

Indirectly (-) supporting Edge here doesn't look like any kind of smart strategy anyway. Edge Games, Tim Langdell - one IP troll. Nobody the big guys can relate to, when they go and crush some other company they make it quick and dirty and speed through the PR consequences - anyone remember FreeCraft? Thought so.
The IGDA ? They can't even get their own organization straight. Langdell's been trying to give himself credit by showing around his title. Who'd have thought it'd actually WORK...
Now, enter the Escapist (twirls moustache) : "Let's omit facts and send some good press to the gaming world's current Butt Monkey for absolutely no reason since he's got nothing to give us, no matter how unpopular that's going to make the site" (readers' reaction was clearly negative and if any planning was made that was to be expected) "so that the guys with actual games know we'll be THEIR bitch anytime" ? THAT would be dumb grade-B-movie evil scheming right there.

Then again I don't have any idea how the Escapist usually handles this stuff. Still feeling I don't get your point.

Whatever~

Didn't somebody cleverer already make a joke about this.
Edgy Edgerton Edging Toward The Edge of The Mighty Edge of Edgyness

RobF:
So when an article says he has a case, well, I'm sure I don't need to say that -yet- again.

Doesn't the Eurogamer article say he (Dr. Langdell) has a case? And if it's in doubt, then that's not for us, as the Grand Internet Mob, to decide.

Honestly, reading up on this, I believe both sides have a case. Edge games have a trademark; Mobigames may be able to undermine the validity of the mark.

In any event, I can sympathize with people saying the article is somewhat unfulfilling, as it doesn't mention Dr. Langdell's shady dealings (not entirely relevant) or previous court decisions (which are legally relevant), and instead has laser focus on the dispute. The result is somewhat out of context and a little late to the party, although the fact-checking is definitively worthwhile.

pneuma08:

Honestly, reading up on this, I believe both sides have a case. Edge games have a trademark; Mobigames may be able to undermine the validity of the mark.

I literally facepalmed reading this.

There is a difference between a trademark (which is what you automatically have if you trade) and a registered trademark (which is optional but has a number of advantages).

Langdell doesn't have a trademark for the word 'edge' because he has not traded with it since the early 90s. His website is a facade, the products non-existent. There's a very easy way anyone can check this - try and buy one.

He has absolutely. No. Case.

There is no use speaking of Langdell "protecting his mark". He doesn't have a mark.

ben---neb:

CountCagliostro:

ben---neb:
Sigh. Just shows what happens when you let the government intervene in markets. Without state inducted "trademarks" then Mobigame could publish their work and Edge games could actually try and do somethig productive.

Best be trolling. Trademarks are not a "state inducted" anything. They are a judicial measure which are demanded by businesses. They serve two extremely useful functions; protecting a businesses identity and reputation, and allowing customers to make informed choices on purchasing (see: the economic/game theory concept of "peaches and lemons"). Unlike other forms of IP, they have no chilling effect; you can evade a trademark simply by naming your brand/product something else (and, if you're smart, not telling the competition in advance so they trademark that as well).
In short, not only are they demanded by the participants of a free market, but they are essential to its function as they allow some relation to exist between demand and pricing. Also, unlike other forms of intellectual property, their "use it or lose it" nature means that they cannot usually be "sat on" by IP trolls. This case is a relatively rare and unfortunate exception.
In conclusion: Go Mobigames! Make that system work!

I never thought I'd say this but (drumroll please) you're...you're...right. You've convinced me. I'll concentrate my scorn against patents and the like instead of trademarks.

A historic occassion if ever there was, someone winning a forum argument.

You, sir, are a man of good grace and honour. From this day I shall consider us brothers.

Edge Games is just a glorified racketeering operation.

In my opinion anyway

jimblackler:
- snip -

I am sorry that I do not possess your infinite knowledge and wisdom regarding both what constitutes a proper trademark and all of the evidence fully laid out in this case, even before being presented to a lawfully appointed (or elected) judge.

Clearly, if there were more people of your caliber, we would not have use of courts of law at all.

But seriously now, I do hope that you are correct and, should this thing go to court, it ends up justly served with the alleged trademark held by Edge games taken out of their hands. Until then, however, neither you nor I nor anyone else have any say about whether Dr. Langdell really has or really, really doesn't have a mark.

I firmly disagree with The Escapist's shaky conclusion on the matter, and am not that impressed with the way the article was written. It reads like a legal disclaimer, which is precisely what you don't want when you're communicating a legal matter to the layman. And the layman in this sense is probably most of the audience reading the article. This probably a forgivable result of a team who don't normally have to read through legal information trying to summarise it for a first time, working with people who probably aren't capable of translating it back into ordinary English.

I still applaud the research that went into the article. It is refreshing to see some professional journalistic seeking and an attempt at true objectivity. It is jumping to conclusions prematurely, at the end (basically in the last paragraph) that is the mistake here. The rest is tolerable if one takes the time to decipher it.

On the matter of the case itself, I agree with Shamus in that Langdell is probably not doing the right thing in any moral sense.

If there is any legal case behind him, it's purely technical, in which case the law system is probably messed up and/or wrong for society. More likely, the blame lies squarely upon him. A publisher should have no right to call issue to an ancient trademark like this. Even if there was a confusion between the two "Edge" games, and people did buy the other product thinking they were getting the old-school Edge, the losses would be far smaller than the legal losses in the case - and here's the real clincher - for both sides. So not only is Langdell making a case on virtually no evidence, with no products to actually back up what he's saying, but he's almost certainly losing money making the case. It's a lose/lose situation.

Even from a practical, cynical and coldly amoral standpoint, this case should go to Mobigames. From an impractical, idealistic and fierily moral standpoint, this case should go to Mobigames. From an impartial, objective and neutral standpoint, this case should go to Mobigames. So let's not pretend this is a more ambiguous court event (God knows they do occur). This is as open and shut as a trademark case could be.

pneuma08:

jimblackler:
- snip -

I am sorry that I do not possess your infinite knowledge and wisdom regarding both what constitutes a proper trademark and all of the evidence fully laid out in this case, even before being presented to a lawfully appointed (or elected) judge.

Clearly, if there were more people of your caliber, we would not have use of courts of law at all.

Really my caliber isn't that high. But then infinite knowledge or wisdom isn't required here. You may still be able to play.

The existence of lawfully appointed judges should not make you shy from taking a view.

*whistle*

They threatened them and asked for a monetary settlement after the name change and adjustment? That's a big no-no if they get into court.

See what I don't get is how anyone can think that trademarking the word "edge" is a sound move.

Other than the above article, nobody I've spoken with on the issue or read about on the issue seems to think that.

Unless we can start registering other descriptive words like "smooth, metal, fast, sticky." If so I might as well get to registering and start suing anyone who uses these words in anything commercial.

It would pay for my college at least.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

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