mclem said:

In the event that Future get away approximately unscathed, and Langdell has to forfeit all rights to the trademark, can Future then seek damages for the existing money claimed from them fraudulently? (Was it even arguably fraudulent?)

Click to expand...

Yes.


That was easy!

I was sitting here at work eating free donuts and staring at an 18,000 row Excel spreadsheet covered in Japanese and sadness when I had a brainwave:

Could it be possible that Langdell is setting up all the parties for a settlement from his side? It seems that he is deliberately being a massive pain in the ass right now so when things do come to a head where EA/Future have to commit serious resources, he can just say, "Tell you what guys, you promise not to sue me or press charges and I will give up all of my claims and disappear without a trace."

While this wouldn't clear him of possible contempt charges, it'd allow him to basically get away scott free. It sounds like the other parties just want this nightmare open and just letting Timmy run way might be the easiest way to do it.

Or am I just simplifying things far too much?

So, did anyone secure the rights to do the movie?

This may actually lead to a sequel.

Magna_Mixalis said:

I was sitting here at work eating free donuts and staring at an 18,000 row Excel spreadsheet covered in Japanese and sadness when I had a brainwave:

Could it be possible that Langdell is setting up all the parties for a settlement from his side? It seems that he is deliberately being a massive pain in the ass right now so when things do come to a head where EA/Future have to commit serious resources, he can just say, "Tell you what guys, you promise not to sue me or press charges and I will give up all of my claims and disappear without a trace."

While this wouldn't clear him of possible contempt charges, it'd allow him to basically get away scott free. It sounds like the other parties just want this nightmare open and just letting Timmy run way might be the easiest way to do it.

Or am I just simplifying things far too much?

Click to expand...

You're missing something. It doesn't matter whether EA and Future want to press charges or not. Once this gets into the hands of the investigating/prosecuting authorities either side of the Atlantic then EA and Future among others are potential witnesses, and witnesses once summonsed have to give their evidence.

Now, it might be that neither EA nor Future want to take that initial step of notifying the authorities but there's no shortage of people who might want to (me, for one - which is why I've been spending some time weeding through the penal codes) and there's enough evidence out there now in the public domain to give probable cause. I would not be surprised, for example, to see the USPTO itself and its UK equivalent the IPO press charges - they both have fraud units.

So even if that agreement were available and on offer to Langdell, it might not be the end. Even so, I don't think he has enough of a negotiating position to press for it at this stage. He blew his chances of settling this one long ago.

heringer said:

So, did anyone secure the rights to do the movie?

This may actually lead to a sequel.

Click to expand...

Based on how long it has been going on I'd say they're looking at a trilogy.

Also good work Phis, this thread is one of my favorite threads here.

A thought just struck me. Is there a Tim Langdell Defense Force on Gaf? There's one for almost everything.

Azih said:

A thought just struck me. Is there a Tim Langdell Defense Force on Gaf? There's one for almost everything.

Click to expand...

If there is they are keeping very very quiet.

phisheep said:

He should have given up and abandoned the trademarks as soon as EA pressed for cancellation, and before they presented their amended petition that particularised the fraud allegations. Up until then he might have walked away. Now that the allegations are in public court records he is likely to be in pretty deep trouble whatever the outcome of this case is. He must know by now that it is looking very bad indeed for him.

If he wants some hard-nosed real-life advice, I'm not that hard to track down.



That is not likely now. Well, he's going to be bruised one way or another, it is now a matter of doing whatever he can to minimise his personal financial risks and jail time. I don't think he's got as far as thinking straight about that yet.

Click to expand...

I fear he already reads your breakdowns/analysis and learns from that. Given all his (from what I've read anyway) assholery, would you actually help him? Or would your advice be a little more, er, blunt?

H.Protagonist said:

I fear he already reads your breakdowns/analysis and learns from that. Given all his (from what I've read anyway) assholery, would you actually help him? Or would your advice be a little more, er, blunt?

Click to expand...

For cash up front, yes I would. For equity in Edge Games, no. At this stage the advice would necessarily be blunt anyway.

I had lost track of this thread and just spent about half an hour catching up with the developments since late September. Thanks for all the reportage, phisheep!

phisheep said:

For cash up front, yes I would. For equity in Edge Games, no. At this stage the advice would necessarily be blunt anyway.

Click to expand...

Does Edge Games have any equity to be leveraged at this point? I think you'd get more money out of recycling plastic bottles.

And by blunt advice, do you mean harsh words or a sock full of quarters? (^_^)d

How much longer do you think this will drag on? It seems like things are coming to a head.

Magna_Mixalis said:

Does Edge Games have any equity to be leveraged at this point? I think you'd get more money out recycling plastic bottles.

And by blunt advice, do you mean harsh words or a sock full of quarters? (^_^)d

How much longer do you think this will drag on? It seems like things are coming to a head.

Click to expand...

I think so too. Langdell is all out of things to reply/respond to and there's nothing else to raise a motion about. Future has now run out of things to say too. It's just possible that EA will get away with a reply to Langdell's latest attempt, but I don't think it is necessary (if they do, they'll have 15 days to do it). The Board seems to be gearing up for a decision, since someone at TTAB has been labelling up the last few weeks submissions in the last couple of days.

I'm expecting a decision within the next month. I'd like it to be earlier, but there is a heck of a lot of stuff to plough through - it might be shortcut if Future's motion to just cancel the damn trademarks gets the nod, because all the rest can then be dismissed as moot and not need too much thought.

BUT a decision here won't be the end of everything. There's still the UK and German trademarks, a bunch of civil cases and possible criminal cases to go. I hope they will move faster than this one has!

As to your other points:

Looks to me like Edge Games has no trading, negative goodwill and unquantified legal liabilities. Wouldn't put it at the top of anyone's list for buying, even for nothing.

By blunt advice I mean a strong dose of reality. Two hours with me has been likened to being run over by a platoon of steamrollers, but at the end you know precisely what your options are.

heringer said:

So, did anyone secure the rights to do the movie?

Click to expand...

The name "Edge of Darkness" is taken.

phisheep said:

Two hours with me has been likened to being run over by a platoon of steamrollers, but at the end you know precisely what your options are.

Click to expand...

Likened to? Oh, that's disappointing. I was hoping for the real thing.

phisheep said:

I think so too. Langdell is all out of things to reply/respond to and there's nothing else to raise a motion about. Future has now run out of things to say too. It's just possible that EA will get away with a reply to Langdell's latest attempt, but I don't think it is necessary (if they do, they'll have 15 days to do it). The Board seems to be gearing up for a decision, since someone at TTAB has been labelling up the last few weeks submissions in the last couple of days.

I'm expecting a decision within the next month. I'd like it to be earlier, but there is a heck of a lot of stuff to plough through - it might be shortcut if Future's motion to just cancel the damn trademarks gets the nod, because all the rest can then be dismissed as moot and not need too much thought.

BUT a decision here won't be the end of everything. There's still the UK and German trademarks, a bunch of civil cases and possible criminal cases to go. I hope they will move faster than this one has!

Click to expand...

I both hope for that and fear the end of my lunchtime enjoyment of this engrossing saga. Will you be taking on other legal gaming issues once this one has played out?

Kulock said:

This is actually a great idea. Call it:

Over the Edge

Click to expand...

I suggest Edging the Edge.

Thank you phisheep for following the trial and keeping us informed.

H.Protagonist said:

I both hope for that and fear the end of my lunchtime enjoyment of this engrossing saga. Will you be taking on other legal gaming issues once this one has played out?

Click to expand...

Good gracious me, I hope not!

I like to come to GAF for relaxation and banter and the odd bit of sarcasm, never expected this bit to turn out to be quite the chore it sometimes is (even though there is sort of a macabre fascination about it).

Most of the legal/gaming stuff that flies around is very run-of-the-mill and boring, doesn't have significant villains in it, doesn't have much in the way of legal significance, doesn't have the impact to allow you to dwell on the procedural niceties and tactics which is one of the interesting things about this case. It just isn't interesting enough for anyone to want to read or, frankly, to write about.

Again, if somebody wants to pay me to do it, I'll consider an offer. But not for relaxation.

Well, except for one thing. There's a big legal issue that is common between gaming and banking which is attracting my attention at the moment - not that there are any imminent cases or anything, but because the law is all wrong on both, and when I'm good and ready I'll let you know what it is. Probably about three years away from that though.

phisheep said:

There's a big legal issue that is common between gaming and banking which is attracting my attention at the moment - not that there are any imminent cases or anything, but because the law is all wrong on both, and when I'm good and ready I'll let you know what it is. Probably about three years away from that though.

Click to expand...

Perfect! I'm sure Langdell's dance of the damned will be almost finished by then. Probably. ^_-

phisheep said:

Good gracious me, I hope not!

I like to come to GAF for relaxation and banter and the odd bit of sarcasm,

Click to expand...

I am now imagining you with a monocle and a ridiculous accent.

Also, thanks for all the analysis Phisheep! I know tons of people say it but I feel an obligation to say it too. A good bit of it goes over my head but I'm catching enough of it to know that you can't dig much deeper than Langdell has.

phisheep said:

If there is they are keeping very very quiet.

Click to expand...

Maybe we are just biding our time, waiting for you to put a hoof wrong.

There's a big legal issue that is common between gaming and banking which is attracting my attention at the moment - not that there are any imminent cases or anything, but because the law is all wrong on both, and when I'm good and ready I'll let you know what it is. Probably about three years away from that though.

Click to expand...

could it be working hours and the philosophy/pay around both ?

As always, thanks for the updates/time/research that you put in, I think TONS of people get a lot out of this thread.

If you ever need a kickass avatar made up, let me know, it's the least I can do for keeping me so entertained, and educated...

ZealousD said:

A good bit of it goes over my head but ...

Click to expand...

If there's something you want explaining more, or explaining better, just ask.

I think I've got myself in a bit of a rut of targeting my writing at people who have been following the story from the beginning - so I've probably left great gaping holes all over the place for people trying to catch up.

Would it be worth putting a 'this is the story so far' post up for example? That's the sort of reason I reserved post #2.

I've been following this thread from the beginning, but a summary would be helpful actually.

phisheep said:

If there's something you want explaining more, or explaining better, just ask.

I think I've got myself in a bit of a rut of targeting my writing at people who have been following the story from the beginning - so I've probably left great gaping holes all over the place for people trying to catch up.

Would it be worth putting a 'this is the story so far' post up for example? That's the sort of reason I reserved post #2.

Click to expand...

That would be awesome if you were to do that. I was reading all the new updates I had missed yesterday and was trying to explain it to some friends not familiar with the case. I think I lost them. I felt like I was trying to describe some verbal path through a legalese maze.

Vormund said:

I've been following this thread from the beginning, but a summary would be helpful actually.

Click to expand...

OK, I'll give it a go. Helps fill the time in before the Board makes a decision anyway (!).

I've put a summary in Post #2 above. Let me know if that helps any.

Damn, that's a pretty clear an concise summary. Nice work man, that helps alot

phisheep said:

FED Oct 2010: Judge denies Langdell’s motion for a preliminary injunction in damning terms falling just short of a judicial finding of fraud, and orders Langdell to face deposition on the fraud allegations. Langdell immediately caves in and settles the case (a case, remember, that he brought) entirely to his disadvantage, and abandons a whole load of trademark applications. Judge orders cancellation of the five marks in issue. Internet goes crazy and thinks it is all over. Internet is wrong.

Click to expand...

I laughed.

Also, where do we nominate Post of the Year candidates?

Thanks for the overview phisheep. This definitely needs to be thread of the year.

Also, will be following the inevitable criminal trials, or have you had enough Timmy in your life?

Magna_Mixalis said:

Thanks for the overview phisheep. This definitely needs to be thread of the year.

Also, will be following the inevitable criminal trials, or have you had enough Timmy in your life?

Click to expand...

I don't like to leave a job unfinished - even if it is one I sometimes wish I had never started(!) - so I'll be here until he either gets locked up or flees to Venezuela, plus any civil cases and/or bankruptcies on the way.

They probably won't be all as visible as this one though. The police aren't quite so open as the USPTO is in letting you see what happens before trial.

phisheep said:

I don't like to leave a job unfinished - even if it is one I sometimes wish I had never started(!) - so I'll be here until he either gets locked up or flees to Venezuela, plus any civil cases and/or bankruptcies on the way.

They probably won't be all as visible as this one though. The police aren't quite so open as the USPTO is in letting you see what happens before trial.

Click to expand...

During any future trial you can be phisheep; intrepid reporter for the GAF Times Daily.

It is now 15 days since the last submission in this case. That means anyone who wants to reply is out of time, and since all parties are now clean out of motions they can bring to the table it is probably a good time for me to have a go at predicting what the forthcoming judgment will be.

Warning, there are lots of links in this post. If you've been following the story so far you probably don't need to click them again. Even if you haven't, be warned that there's some rather voluminous crap behind some of those links.

My promise, since this is a prediction post, is to not subsequently edit either my predictions or the rationale for them. If I'm wrong I might come back here to show myself up, but I'll leave the original stuff alone. Except for any spellling errots.

Current status

Of the five disputed trademarks, one is still live because of Langdell’s successful reversal of voluntary surrender (in the light of Future’s previous part-ownership) and the other four are still live because on 25 August the Board vacated its previous ruling that they would be cancelled through voluntary surrender.

Outstanding motions (officially)

(1) Future’s motion of 28 July to simply cancel mark ‘816 (EDGE for printed media) pursuant to the District Court order. Opposed by Langdell on 9 August, and replied to by Future on 26 August,

Future’s logic here seems unassailable. The USPTO has no choice but to cancel this mark pursuant to the District Court order and, since the same logic applies to the other four disputed marks, they too should be cancelled and the Board should so order. Or even better, it should not so order (because it is not the Board’s call, it should simply report the fact of their actual or pending cancellation). It does not matter that no motion has been made to do so, because the USPTO has no discretion as to whether to obey an order of the District Court. It is usual for the TTAB to allow an appeal period (of 30 days I think) against any rulings it makes, but here TTAB has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal either and it would be in order to cancel the marks immediately. Somehow I doubt they will do that though, but I do expect them to at least lay a strict appeal period after which the marks will be cancelled. Langdell has very limited room for manoeuvre here, his only recourse is to return to the District Court and appeal the decision there, but if he does that he will immediately face deposition on the fraud allegations. Future Publishing might have grounds to validly dispute the ruling, but since it was their motion in the first place I very much doubt that they will do so.

Predicted outcome: all 5 trademarks cancelled; best tactics for Langdell – roll over and accept it. There is no need for the TTAB to make a call as to whether this is with or without prejudice – it is simply a matter of obeying a court order.

(2) Edge’s motion of 3rd August to withdraw voluntary surrender of two other marks on the grounds they were also part-owned by Future, lengthily opposed by Future on 23 August, opposed by EA on 29 August, replied to by Edge 29 September and (with revised filings) 3rd October.

Given that (a) the trademarks in issue will be cancelled anyway and (b) the Board has already – on 25 August – vacated its previous ruling of 11 July that the marks would be cancelled by voluntary surrender, there is absolutely no need for the TTAB to reach a decision on this motion. That’s a huge waste of lots of people’s time, but they should have seen this coming.

Prediction: motion dismissed without prejudice as moot

Other outstanding issues/motions

(3) TTAB’s requirement, most recently on 11 July for Edge and Future to appoint Lead Counsel, attempted usurpation by Langdell 28 July and again on 25 September. Future gave their view on 28 September and Langdell admitted he doesn’t know what Lead Counsel does on 3 October.

This one is a bit of a conundrum. As we’ll see in a moment the case is not actually dead enough (even if my above predictions are right) that Lead Counsel will not be needed. And I’m not sure that the Board has the power to appoint counsel anyway. This could go one of two ways: either the Board will disqualify Langdell from acting as counsel for Future, or it will attempt to appoint Future’s counsel. It can’t appoint Langdell as counsel without giving strong grounds for appeal to Future.

Predicted outcome (sticking my neck out on this one): Langdell disqualified as representing Future in any way on the grounds of not being a lawyer, leaving him no inexpensive option other than to accept Future; best option for Langdell is to accept Future as Lead Counsel, since he will need them at least partially on-side to continue the case.

(4) Langdell’s motion of 4 October to pull Future’s trademark into the case. Opposed by EA 24 October and by Future on 31 October

Now, strictly speaking, this motion is out of order. Proceedings were already suspended to hear the other two motions. Besides, as I mentioned somewhere earlier in the thread, the Board has no discretion to do this.

Predicted outcome: Motion not considered because of proceedings being suspended. Best option for Langdell – don’t worry overmuch about that, because you’ll probably win this particular argument anyway and the point may have got across (and if it doesn’t it is probably because you buried the key points in so much junk).

Resulting status of the case

If all the motions go the way I expect, there’s still a loophole that allows the case to continue. Or maybe even two.

Firstly: since EA is seeking cancellation of the trademarks, and since the trademarks are going to be cancelled anyway (if I’m right) then there wouldn’t seem much point in keeping the case going. But there might be if EA wants to keep going for the sake of a judicial finding of fraud against Langdell. I don’t think this will happen though – probably EA doesn’t have the desire for it (or the desire to fund it) and I’m not sure that TTAB has discretion to keep a cancellation proceeding open if the trademarks are cancelled already.

Secondly, and more important, there’s the point raised by Langdell in his motion of 4 October. There’s a good argument buried in that, and it is all to do with timing. When EA filed their initial petition to cancel on 11 Sept 2009 they referred to several trademarks including the one that was definitely (at the time) part owned by Future. EA’s amended petition on 24 March 2010 was after that registration had been divided (with separate trademark numbers) between Edge and Future. BUT the TTAB’s own rules of court say that an amended petition relates back to the date of the original petition.

However, the court order in District Court was well after the division of registrations and unequivocally referred to the Langdell mark as it was at the time. So it looks to me like the proceedings are still potentially live as between EA and Future (for Future's part of the then-undivided registration), with Langdell as a necessary defendant since it is him rather than Future that is facing the fraud allegations.

I really don’t know what the TTAB will do with this. I have a horrible feeling that they’ll invite EA to submit a further revised petition if they wish to, which would just delay everything again. Trouble is for Langdell that – if I’m right above – he’ll have nothing significant left to trade by way of settlement, so he might be tempted to brazen it out. I can’t see EA allowing that unless he surrenders, say, the UK trademarks as well. As for Langdell’s tactics, I really can’t see (yeah I know, I’ve banged on about this a few times) whether he wants this to come to trial or not, but if he does then he needs both Future (as, this time, primary defendant) and EA onside. Can’t see that happening.

Prediction: TTAB will duck the issue by declaring the motion void since proceedings were suspended at the time. EA will then drop the case.

Phisheep, thanks once again. Because of the on-going issues with the trademarks do you think if EA were making a Mirror's Edge 2, the litigation would stop them announcing?

Dr Frasier Crane said:

Phisheep, thanks once again. Because of the on-going issues with the trademarks do you think if EA were making a Mirror's Edge 2, the litigation would stop them announcing?

Click to expand...

No. EA now has its own registered trademarks in "Mirror's Edge" - Langdell tried but failed to stop them getting registered.

EDIT: I just checked the TTAB site, and Langdell has filed yet another something-or-other. I'll get around to looking at that later this evening after I'm done cleaning the house.

@phisheep: After reading your (brilliant) summary of current events, what could he be filing at this point that would make and real difference in the matter?

As amusing as this thread has been, I think it's time for Mr. Langdell to go away...for a few years hopefully.

Langdell has filed a further reply trying to drag Future’s trademark into the case.

It’s a bit more focused than his usual scattergun approach. To give the man his due, once he thinks he has found a loophole he sticks his finger in it and starts wiggling away like crazy. Here I think he has at last found the right loophole, but has put his finger in the wrong end of it. (He’s also messed up the paragraph numbering, which makes it not the easiest of documents to follow.)

There are 42 pages here, but the vast bulk of them (from the first paragraph 11 to the end and all the exhibits) form an edited version of Langdell’s earlier submission that Future objected to as being, amongst other things, too long. I’ve already done that one to death earlier in the thread.

Paras 2 and 3 are the usual dog-ate-my-homework stuff.

Paras 6-10 have some uninteresting procedural nitpickery about one of Future’s submissions and the usual rants about the District Court judgment being invalid and obtained by fraud. Nothing new.

The logic of the rest of it goes like this (paragraph numbers in brackets)

Future’s opposition to the motion was untimely (1) and EA did not have standing to oppose the motion (4) so the motion, being unopposed, should be granted and Future’s division of the EDGE mark reversed. Because of that, Edge did not have authority to surrender the mark and the voluntary surrender should be reversed (5).

The timeliness thing is odd. All three parties seem to be working on a 20-day turnround, but according to the Trademark Rules 2.127

a brief in response to a motion shall be filed within fifteen days from the date of service of the motion

Click to expand...

Call me out if I'm wrong about this, please! So far as I can see, then, both EA’s and Future’s oppositions were out of time. But Langdell goes into detailed investigation of Future’s opposition to try and show it was not filed until the 27th. It probably doesn’t matter either way though, as even if both oppositions were late, Langdell’s original motion was out of order since the proceedings were suspended.

I can’t see any rationale behind Langdell’s bare assertion that EA had no standing to oppose this motion. They are a party to the proceedings after all.

But even if Langdell’s motion stands and the oppositions to it don’t, that doesn’t mean that the motion will or should be granted. Sure, the Board has the discretion to do so. But if Langdell had made, say, a motion to paint the Eiffel Tower green it wouldn’t be granted even if the other parties didn’t object, because it is outside the scope of the case and outside the competence of the Board. And there’s a flaw in Langdell’s original motion that prevents the board from simply granting it – the motion simply is not specific enough, it asks for EITHER the division of the EDGE mark to be reversed OR for the child registration to be brought into the proceedings. You can’t simply grant a motion that has an either/or in it. So it won’t be granted.

This filing doesn't add anything of substance to the proceedings. As I mentioned earlier, I think this point may come up again later on but it won't be conceded at this stage.

While we’re waiting for some sort of judgment in EA v Edge Games, I thought I’d take a dip into the Velocity Micro case that Langdell has been placing so much store in in his submissions.

Velocity makes PCs, and had been using the marks ‘Edge’ and ‘Gamer’s Edge’ for several years when in 2006 Langdell applied for and in 2008 got these trademarks registered to him (well, to one of his companies). Familiar tactics so far. Velocity petitioned the USPTO to get Langdell’s marks cancelled on the grounds of fraud and abandonment, and also sued in the Federal District Court. In the end the case settled in Langdell’s favour. Velocity didn’t have the resources of EA, or the evidence provided by ChaosEdge to back up its allegations. Shame really.

Two things strike me as interesting about this case.

First, there’s Langdell’s answer in the USPTO case. For anyone wondering how Langdell got away with it for so long this is worth a read – it’s a much more controlled and confident document than the nightmare manic flapdoodles that we’ve got accustomed to in the EA case. He may be lying through his teeth but at least he is doing it fairly convincingly.

Second, and way more important, there’s this judgment from the Federal Court. It isn’t a trial judgment or an interim judgment (the case never got that far), but an opinion on Velocity’s claim for compensation for Langdell wilfully delaying proceedings. As is usual with judgments about Langdell, it is pretty damning. Here are a few extracts:

In response to numerous communications made by Jack Phillips, Vice President of Edge Interactive, contesting service of process and seeking extensions of time to Answer, this Court granted Edge Interactive four extensions of time to file a
responsive pleading.

Click to expand...

Now that’s a name that we haven’t come across before. Call me cynical, but I rather suspect that this Jack Phillips doesn’t exist other than in Langdell’s imagination.

the filing was made on behalf of "The Edge Interactive Media, Inc. a /k/ a Edge Games, Inc." and that "Edge Interactive, Inc. is also known as Edge Games." (Def.'s Answer ~~ 1-3. )

Click to expand...

Ah, here’s Langdell deliberately misleading the court as to the relationship between his two companies. No surprise there, and the court spotted it.

this Court finds these conflicting statements were misrepresentations made on behalf of Edge Interactive as part of their concerted effort to mislead this Court and gain an unfair advantage in litigation

Click to expand...

Velocity contends that sanctions are warranted because Mr. Phillips, Vice President of Edge Interactive, has made untruthful statements to the Court regarding service of process and Mr. Langdell's relationship to Edge Interactive.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Don’t think they cottoned on that Phillips doesn’t actually exist (probably).

The Court specifically finds three misrepresentations that necessitate sanctions. First, Mr. Phillips informed the Court that Edge Interactive had not been served in this matter and, as a result, requested additional time to file a responsive pleading. (See Phillips Decl. ~~ 7-8, June 19, 2008 (stating that neither he "nor anyone else employed by [Edge Interactive] has received a copy of the complaint in this matter"); Phillips Decl. 4, July 21, 2008 (noting that "Edge Interactive has never received any documents or papers in respect to this matter and thus there is no way that Edge Interactive could file responsive pleadings in this matter even if it does retain local counsel as there has been nothing received by Edge Interactive").) These representations were made to the Court by phone and in two declarations, signed under penalty of perjury

Click to expand...

The by-now-familiar ‘dog-ate-my-homework’ defense!

Defendant represented that Mr. Langdell resigned from the company as its employee and agent for service of process prior to being served in this matter, and that Mr. Langdell has not received any communication related to this matter.

…

These representations were subsequently proven to be false. Edge Interactive stated […] that Mr. Langdell "has been affiliated with The Edge Interactive Media Incorporated at all times pertinent to this dispute and has overseen the day-to-day operations of Edge Interactive;" thus contradicting the statement that Mr. Langdell resigned from the company prior to Velocity's filing of the Complaint. […] Further, Mr. Langdell was publicly listed as Edge Interactive's Registered Agent for Service of Process with California's Secretary of State as late as June 11, 2008.

Click to expand...

Ah, that’s a new one! The “I resigned from the company so it isn’t my fault” defense.

Edge Interactive's flagrant disregard of the rules of court and concerted effort to mock procedural safeguards in order to avoid default and obtain an unfair advantage in the litigation …

Click to expand...

This Court further holds that Edge Interactive's numerous misrepresentations were part of the company's conscious strategy to mislead the Court

Click to expand...

Great stuff, phisheep. Langdell just keeps digging himself deeper and deeper.

Thanks again for keeping track of this. Langdell is clearly lying to the courts on multiple issues. Will he see some sort of punishment for this or will he just loose his patents? And if he looses his patents, will EA own the patent?

Hopefully his multiple acts of perjury result in jail time. What a tool.

Coen said:

Thanks again for keeping track of this. Langdell is clearly lying to the courts on multiple issues. Will he see some sort of punishment for this or will he just loose his patents? And if he looses his patents, will EA own the patent?

Click to expand...

This is a trademark dispute, not a patent one. And yes, pretty damn likely he's going to lose it.

Coen said:

Will he see some sort of punishment for this or will he just loose his patents? And if he looses his patents, will EA own the patent?

Click to expand...

It's trademarks, not patents.

As to punishment, I don't think that the USPTO has the power to punish him in this case, not unless it goes further into pre-trial stuff, which I don't expect will happen. I do expect to see criminal proceedings brought once this case is over.

The trademarks will be cancelled, EA doesn't get them.

phisheep said:

Hmm. Don’t think they cottoned on that Phillips doesn’t actually exist (probably).

Click to expand...

"He" posted on Mobygames, filling in some details:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...9/+mobygames+jack+phillips&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

But I can't find anyone who looks like him on LinkedIn. May just be a coincidence; there's no *requirement* for a tech professional to be on LinkedIn...

Scary side-discovery: Tim Langdell is a 3rd degree contact of mine on LinkedIn. I feel so... unclean.

There also appears to be four of him on there.

Can perjury charges not be brought against him while the current EA/Edge proceedings are going on? It seems like there is more than enough evidence to show he's fucking with the courts to do so.

gabbo said:

Can perjury charges not be brought against him while the current EA/Edge proceedings are going on? It seems like there is more than enough evidence to show he's fucking with the courts to do so.

Click to expand...

Perjury yes, contempt of court, no.

37 CFR 2.127 (f) prevents the USPTO from finding contempt of court at this stage (during pretrial motions).

Of course he could be charged with perjury, but the trouble with that is it is a criminal offense, needs a criminal court. And if charges are brought now then I guess the criminal proceedings would take precedence and that would only delay the civil proceedings even more. Nobody wants that, so nobody is bringing criminal charges yet.

mclem said:

"He" posted on Mobygames, filling in some details:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...9/+mobygames+jack+phillips&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

Click to expand...

And note the date on that - right slap bang in the middle of the trial just after the judgment that I posted. Just about the time in fact that somebody might have thought to check out if he was for real!

Sorry for the bump, no news or anything, I just have a question for people who might know of such things. I was just reading RPS' coverage of DoomRL and people in the comments section said stuff like this:

You are not legally required to ‘protect’ your IP, the only time you MUST go after someone is when you have a trademark, then you must go after people infringing on the trademark in ways that would cause a normal consumer to possibly mistake their work for yours.

Copyrights don’t require protection, patents don’t require protection.

Click to expand...

No. “Legally obligated to protect your IP” is a lie trotted out by corporate scumbags to justify their behavior. George Lucas, probably the savviest marketer/licensor there is, has been happily allowing Star Wars fan films for years, and somehow Chewbacca has remained outside the public domain.

Click to expand...

It really is a good example of a lie being repeated often enough to become the accepted truth. People just accept now that it’s a legal imperative for companies to crush fan-made works. A lot of people parrot it as truth, too.

The fact is that a lot of fan stuff that gets shut down is simply because there’s a legal department with nothing better to do. Casual spite, if you will.

Edit: And it’s not infringing on anyone’s trademark if you include a tiny disclaimer at the start saying X and Y are trademarks of Z – this is a fan-made, non-profit project.

report

Click to expand...

Is that true? Cos it really is a very common reason claimed when companies shut down fan works, to the point people on forums like this jump to defend them and keep good will for them based on it even when they don't claim it.

Alextended said:

Sorry for the bump, no news or anything, I just have a question for people who might know of such things. I was just reading RPS' coverage of DoomRL and people in the comments section said stuff like this:

Is that true? Cos it really is a very common reason claimed when companies shut down fan works, to the point people on forums like this jump to defend them and keep good will for them based on it even when they don't claim it.

Click to expand...

my fiance is an intellectual property attorney and i ask her about this all the time. its fairly complicated, but the bottom line is that companies do not have to prosecute if they learn of something infringing. the drawbacks to their not prosecuting are 1) that they probably cannot go on to prosecute that specific infringement later if they dont do it right when they learn about it, 2) if they let too many things infringe without prosecuting they could be subject to dilution wherein they lose some control over their trademarks, and 3) if they dont prosecute one infringement, later infringers are likely to use that as a defense (why me and not him?). but they can choose whether to prosecute and which to prosecute.

all of the above is for the US, which i understand is quite different from most of the rest of the world.

Thanks. Still not very clear to me I guess, if they'd really risk losing their rights by allowing some fan work that has clear disclaimers about who owns the rights etc to continue.

Alextended said:

Thanks. Still not very clear to me I guess, if they'd really risk losing their rights by allowing some fan work that has clear disclaimers about who owns the rights etc to continue.

Click to expand...

Isn't it more about a copyrighted works public perception than actually losing the legal ownership/right to a work? A copyright holder won't lose ownership of something, but that thing may lose value due to how it is portrayed in unofficial works.

Don't get your hopes up - nothings happened yet in the case - they're taking a heck of a long time over it.

But look what I found!

I'm pretty sure it is genuine. A different and older photo than we've seen anywhere before at least.

But if you find yourself in hospital around LA, I suggest you hold off calling for a chaplain.