phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Yep, it's the UK laws we have to be careful about - or not as the case may be.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EA v EDGE GAMES, the Aftermath. Thread of the Decline and Fall of Tim Langdell
- Thread starter phisheep
- Start date
- Status
Yep, it's the UK laws we have to be careful about - or not as the case may be.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Civil lawsuits are a bit like tennis. One side hits the ball and then it is the other side’s turn. You don’t get to hit the ball more than once. But here Langdell is flailing away at the ball desperately trying to get it over the net and failing every time.
His latest effort, filed yesterday, tries to bring the old Velocity Micro case back into the frame.
Just as a reminder, before EA brought their cancellation case against Langdell Velocity Micro did the same thing having been pestered by Tim. They alleged fraud amongst other things but, in the absence of the new evidence dug up by Chaosedge weren’t able to sustain this and the case settled in Langdell’s favour. This is the same Velocity Micro that Langdell forged emails from in the UK High Court action against Future.
In this motion, Langdell claims (at para 7) that the Velocity Micro judgment …
But since he has helpfully attached the judgment as Exhibit A, we can see that it doesn’t say any of those things!
And at para 9 …
But the ruling didn’t say any of those things either. Langdell thinks that it does because part of the settlement was that Edge was deemed to have succeeded on the merits of the case - but all that means is that Velocity Micro were unable to prove their allegations, it's doesn't assert any rights to Edge.
All this is somewhat beside the point though, since Langdell tried this approach before in trying to get EA’s case thrown out back in 2009, and the Board dismissed it in a sound and reasoned judgment in February 2010.
There’s another reason it won’t work, and one that shows that Langdell really isn’t paying proper attention. Only four weeks ago the Board made it clear that it needs certified copies of judgments in order to pay any attention to them, and the exhibits to this latest motion are not certified copies.
Boom.
If I were EA and Future I’d be inclined to keep quiet and let Langdell carry on destroying himself with untimely meritless motions that the Board will see through in an instant. I understand though that they may feel a need to respond to this one, but I hope they don’t, as it’ll slow things down.
His latest effort, filed yesterday, tries to bring the old Velocity Micro case back into the frame.
Just as a reminder, before EA brought their cancellation case against Langdell Velocity Micro did the same thing having been pestered by Tim. They alleged fraud amongst other things but, in the absence of the new evidence dug up by Chaosedge weren’t able to sustain this and the case settled in Langdell’s favour. This is the same Velocity Micro that Langdell forged emails from in the UK High Court action against Future.
In this motion, Langdell claims (at para 7) that the Velocity Micro judgment …
But since he has helpfully attached the judgment as Exhibit A, we can see that it doesn’t say any of those things!
And at para 9 …
But the ruling didn’t say any of those things either. Langdell thinks that it does because part of the settlement was that Edge was deemed to have succeeded on the merits of the case - but all that means is that Velocity Micro were unable to prove their allegations, it's doesn't assert any rights to Edge.
All this is somewhat beside the point though, since Langdell tried this approach before in trying to get EA’s case thrown out back in 2009, and the Board dismissed it in a sound and reasoned judgment in February 2010.
There’s another reason it won’t work, and one that shows that Langdell really isn’t paying proper attention. Only four weeks ago the Board made it clear that it needs certified copies of judgments in order to pay any attention to them, and the exhibits to this latest motion are not certified copies.
Boom.
If I were EA and Future I’d be inclined to keep quiet and let Langdell carry on destroying himself with untimely meritless motions that the Board will see through in an instant. I understand though that they may feel a need to respond to this one, but I hope they don’t, as it’ll slow things down.
I think he's trying to form an argument as to why all this means he should be crowned King unopposed.
Yep, reign stops play.
It's like watching Wile E. Coyote try to grasp at clouds before he starts plummeting, and the boulder inevitably crushes him.
Wait, so Langdell is essentially stating that because Velocity Micro settled with him, that's legal proof that he owns the marks?
I'm pretty dumb when it comes to law, but even I know that just because two parties decide to settle doesn't mean that the court issued a ruling or that either party's claims were actually valid. Just because Velocity Micro couldn't prove their claims doesn't mean that Langdell never did what they said he did.
At this point he might as well submit a motion full of gargling noises.
I'm pretty dumb when it comes to law, but even I know that just because two parties decide to settle doesn't mean that the court issued a ruling or that either party's claims were actually valid. Just because Velocity Micro couldn't prove their claims doesn't mean that Langdell never did what they said he did.
At this point he might as well submit a motion full of gargling noises.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Three more filings were made yesterday.
The first, from EA and Future, more or less just asks the board to put a stop to this nonsense by cancelling the trademarks promptly, but also points out that Langdell's filings are meritless, burdensome and delaying. A clear pointer towards the vexatious litigant tag.
The second, also from EA and Future simply corrects a booboo in the first one (they got the date on the certificate of service wrong).
The third is yet another Langdell one. It's a bit big, and I'm too tired to go through it right now - but it does look to have some new arguments in it. I'll get back to it in about 14 hours after some sleep.
The first, from EA and Future, more or less just asks the board to put a stop to this nonsense by cancelling the trademarks promptly, but also points out that Langdell's filings are meritless, burdensome and delaying. A clear pointer towards the vexatious litigant tag.
The second, also from EA and Future simply corrects a booboo in the first one (they got the date on the certificate of service wrong).
The third is yet another Langdell one. It's a bit big, and I'm too tired to go through it right now - but it does look to have some new arguments in it. I'll get back to it in about 14 hours after some sleep.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Dammit, I was on my way to bed, but in the last half-hour there's another filing appeared.
It is a decision by the Board, in view of having received certified copies of the District Court judgment, to cancel all five of the trademarks in issue. And also to ignore all of Langdell's recent filings (in footnote 2 to page 2 as expected, yay!).
Let's not celebrate yet though. this is precisely the position we thought we were in after the District Court ruling some two and a half years ago. And rather disappointingly, the Board merely says that the five trademarks will be cancelled "in due course", which they've also said before and isn't quite the same as something like immediately or without delay.
And besides, they appear to have overlooked the fact that one of the five has already been cancelled for an unrelated reason.
I'm not actually counting this as over until something gets cancelled or someone gets arrested or something equally actually concrete happens.
Anyhow, it's bedtime for me, I'll post some more tomorrow, including whatever Langdell thought he might get away with in that last motion.
It is a decision by the Board, in view of having received certified copies of the District Court judgment, to cancel all five of the trademarks in issue. And also to ignore all of Langdell's recent filings (in footnote 2 to page 2 as expected, yay!).
Let's not celebrate yet though. this is precisely the position we thought we were in after the District Court ruling some two and a half years ago. And rather disappointingly, the Board merely says that the five trademarks will be cancelled "in due course", which they've also said before and isn't quite the same as something like immediately or without delay.
And besides, they appear to have overlooked the fact that one of the five has already been cancelled for an unrelated reason.
I'm not actually counting this as over until something gets cancelled or someone gets arrested or something equally actually concrete happens.
Anyhow, it's bedtime for me, I'll post some more tomorrow, including whatever Langdell thought he might get away with in that last motion.
Anton668
Member
the board cant really be living with that big of blinders on now can they? they have to realize how many ppl are keeping an eye on this/how important this is right?
I dont think that many people are actually keeping an eye on this. I mean, it's America's Worst Company against a little guy all on his own.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Yeah, they can. They are judicial. They're not allowed to take anything into consideration except what is presented to them in evidence.
(They're also not allowed to ignore a District Court ruling for 2.5 years - but let's leave that for the after party sweep-up shall we?)
Somewhere they may realise that this case has a bit more attention that some others, but that's not relevant to their decisions. But also the effect is minor. For example, if you look on RFCExpress this case has about 5 times as many viewings as the otherwise similar Cybernet Systems v Edge Games. But the difference is only 800 or so, and chances are that's just one guy (me) pressing F5 nearly every day for three years just in case.
That is not a significant influence on a judicial process, and nor should it be.
Anton668
Member
well.... I think he's more than just some random joe. Pretty sure he is a established trademark troll. Also, Americas Worst Company just happens to be doing something right for once that actually benefits others as well.
maybe I should have worded that better/elaborated more.
Im not saying this case will be as important in the ages to come as a Roe V. Wade case. But I would be willing to wager that if will definitely make others down the line think twice about pulling the same shenanigans in the future and will probably be referenced if someone tries the same thing.
I dont know, I was just under the presumption that the board caught flak last time for being so.. indecisive? slow?(well, slower than the US court system normally is?). Meh, I dont know how to really explain it aside from while it may not end up being national headline grabbing decision, i feel it will be of some importance in the future.
also I didnt meat to imply that the "board" would be sitting in a office talking to themselves going "ok board, everyone is watching, you cant screw this up. people are counting on you. you can do this!" just that... well...
bah, I'll see if I can get someone smarter than me to explain what the hell im trying to say.. lol
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Let’s get one thing out of the way first. The Board has ruled that Langdell’s five trademarks will be cancelled in accordance with the District Court judgment. In due course. That looks very much like a final slap-down ruling, much like the other two final slap-down rulings we’ve had over the last few years, but the trademarks haven’t been cancelled yet so the fat lady has not yet sung.
There is no indication whatsoever in the ruling as to whether this closes the case or not (there are after all outstanding allegations of fraud). Fundamentally that is EA’s call and once the marks have in fact been cancelled I expect they will call it off. It’s what I would do.
The galling bit about this is that it could have been done in late 2010 rather than three years later. Indeed it should have been.
Now, back to Langdell’s last submission, which the Board rightly ignored.
There are two arguments here.
The first one is banging an old drum, in claiming that the Velocity Micro case fully litigated the issues and precludes any further claim by anyone on the grounds of fraud and/or abandonment. Trouble with that, as we’ve rehearsed before, is that is just plain not true. The legal arguments don’t hold water, the case was settled rather than fully litigated despite what the ruling says and besides in the EA case there are new facts and allegations that were not available to Velocity Micro.
The second argument is one that we have not seen before, it is that since EA acquired a registered trademark for Mirrors Edge in 2010 it can no longer be harmed by Edge’s registered marks and therefore has no standing to bring or pursue the case.
That’s an argument that might have some merit were it not for one thing – the fact that Langdell is pursuing and prolonging this case to the bitter end is ample evidence of harm to EA at the very least in terms of the costs of continuing the legal action.
Let’s look at tactics going forward:
For the USPTO/TTAB the registrations need to be cancelled as fast as possible, otherwise this case is not going to die.
For EA and Future there is a choice. They can be satisfied when (eventually) the marks are cancelled, or they can pursue the case as regards the fraud allegations. I’d like to see the latter, but in practise the former is by far their best option and I expect it to rest there.
For Langdell, he can go back to the District Court or file an appeal. Neither seems at all likely despite his protests, since he cannot find a lawyer to present the case as he sees it and any lawyer who does will be subject to court sanctions. Other than that he must face the fact that these trademarks are dead.
There is no indication whatsoever in the ruling as to whether this closes the case or not (there are after all outstanding allegations of fraud). Fundamentally that is EA’s call and once the marks have in fact been cancelled I expect they will call it off. It’s what I would do.
The galling bit about this is that it could have been done in late 2010 rather than three years later. Indeed it should have been.
Now, back to Langdell’s last submission, which the Board rightly ignored.
There are two arguments here.
The first one is banging an old drum, in claiming that the Velocity Micro case fully litigated the issues and precludes any further claim by anyone on the grounds of fraud and/or abandonment. Trouble with that, as we’ve rehearsed before, is that is just plain not true. The legal arguments don’t hold water, the case was settled rather than fully litigated despite what the ruling says and besides in the EA case there are new facts and allegations that were not available to Velocity Micro.
The second argument is one that we have not seen before, it is that since EA acquired a registered trademark for Mirrors Edge in 2010 it can no longer be harmed by Edge’s registered marks and therefore has no standing to bring or pursue the case.
That’s an argument that might have some merit were it not for one thing – the fact that Langdell is pursuing and prolonging this case to the bitter end is ample evidence of harm to EA at the very least in terms of the costs of continuing the legal action.
Let’s look at tactics going forward:
For the USPTO/TTAB the registrations need to be cancelled as fast as possible, otherwise this case is not going to die.
For EA and Future there is a choice. They can be satisfied when (eventually) the marks are cancelled, or they can pursue the case as regards the fraud allegations. I’d like to see the latter, but in practise the former is by far their best option and I expect it to rest there.
For Langdell, he can go back to the District Court or file an appeal. Neither seems at all likely despite his protests, since he cannot find a lawyer to present the case as he sees it and any lawyer who does will be subject to court sanctions. Other than that he must face the fact that these trademarks are dead.
Love it! Thanks phisheep, informative and witty as always.
Anton668
Member
although it would be best for all involved just to have the thing done with, if EA/Future dont go after him and let it die, but Langdell then goes to file/appeal, could EA/Future go "Hey Tim, about them fraud charges..." ? or would it still be in their better interest to leave it?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
It is still in their better interests to leave it lie, as a civil finding of fraud doesn't mean anything in the criminal courts.
There's a vanishingly small chance that Langdell will get an appeal accepted by the courts anyway.
It is time now (or it very soon will be once the trademarks are definitely cancelled) for criminal prosecutions to take over.
Anton668
Member
?!?!?!?!?!? the fuck?!?!?!?! it really is that stick figure of a dog this time isnt it!!!!!
fabricated backlash
Member
I'm only tangentially following this thread, but everytime I do catch up, my neck starts to hurt from all the head shaking... what a character that one is. Thanks for the updates phisheep, I'll sue you for damages done to my neck however, unless you've patented the exclusive rights of making me SMH in disbelief^^ lol.
Delusibeta
Banned
Will Langdell ever give up?
Nope.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Well. It will be interesting to see what he tries next.
Making the reasonable assumptions that (a) he will not be able to find a lawyer willing to present crap arguments to an appeals court (b) he does not want to be in jail; then probably his mind ought to be turning towards evidence. The sort of evidence that might get seized for a criminal investigation.
It's a tough call between shredding such evidence as there is and fabricating evidence that there isn't.
Really tough.
Anton668
Member
well, after so long... why break from tradition?
Frankenstrat
Member
Hard to believe this is still going. Thanks for all the updates, phi.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Oh my giddy aunt, Langdell has filed yet another motion, this time an attempt to vacate the decision the Board made only yesterday.
Haven't read it yet, will report back here when I have.
Haven't read it yet, will report back here when I have.
Delusibeta
Banned
As I said, noooooope, he won't give up.
EdwardTivrusky
Member
WOW!
For a man all on his own he sure is tenacious, or is that vexatious, i'm not sure. He must have unending reserves of energy to keep this up. EA and Future's legal team must be wondering if he's powered by Duracell or similar. Blimey.
I know legal proceedings can take a long time to conclude but this is quite something for a case of this nature surely? Good work as usual, Phi.
For a man all on his own he sure is tenacious, or is that vexatious, i'm not sure. He must have unending reserves of energy to keep this up. EA and Future's legal team must be wondering if he's powered by Duracell or similar. Blimey.
I know legal proceedings can take a long time to conclude but this is quite something for a case of this nature surely? Good work as usual, Phi.
SchleimanTank
Member
Huh. Is this really how you argue in legal filings? Reads more like internet argument trash talking, or a TV courtroom drama to me...
So all he is basically saying with this one is "you are incorrect, board, try again OR ELSE" or something? Sense doesn't seem to be part of his arguments.
Are you sure it's okay for you to say that? Someone like Tim might twist it as blackmail.
Are you sure it's okay for you to say that? Someone like Tim might twist it as blackmail.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Unfortunately there isn't, so far as I can tell. The TTAB cannot make a finding of contempt against any person in the course of pretrial motions.
Sounds to me like a stupid rule, but it is the rule.
It is both.
You know what they say about those who chose to defend themselves in court . . .
seeing as how Psi is out on a walk, I thought I would save him the trouble and just post Tims latest motion for him...
Amazing.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Yep. There's yet another motion from Langdell filed today.
It's a further modification of his last two, but it has "amended" in the title and an extra paragraph at the front and a few other differences.
The new para 1 claims that the Board has erred in law by acting on certified District Court judgments provided by EA/Future to the Board, when the judgments should have been certified to the Director. There might be some validity in this argument, but only if the District Court clerk did not certify the judgments to the Director back in 2010. We don't know. Of course if they were so certified then the 2 1/2 year delay in cancelling the trademarks is pretty diabolical, but the provision of additional certified copies would not make a blind bit of difference.
Further down in para 7 there's a reference apparently in response to the point I made above about EA being harmed by the court case itself, and seeking to sidestep the issue.
It won't work. None of these motions will have any impact at all except for one thing - by my count this latest motion brings the total of Langdell's blatantly untimely/unwarranted/delaying motions to 12 (that's not counting any that might be considered arguably to have some merit). Twelve is an important number, because there is precedent for a declaration of vexatious litigant status as a result of filing twelve such motions in a single case.
It's a further modification of his last two, but it has "amended" in the title and an extra paragraph at the front and a few other differences.
The new para 1 claims that the Board has erred in law by acting on certified District Court judgments provided by EA/Future to the Board, when the judgments should have been certified to the Director. There might be some validity in this argument, but only if the District Court clerk did not certify the judgments to the Director back in 2010. We don't know. Of course if they were so certified then the 2 1/2 year delay in cancelling the trademarks is pretty diabolical, but the provision of additional certified copies would not make a blind bit of difference.
Further down in para 7 there's a reference apparently in response to the point I made above about EA being harmed by the court case itself, and seeking to sidestep the issue.
It won't work. None of these motions will have any impact at all except for one thing - by my count this latest motion brings the total of Langdell's blatantly untimely/unwarranted/delaying motions to 12 (that's not counting any that might be considered arguably to have some merit). Twelve is an important number, because there is precedent for a declaration of vexatious litigant status as a result of filing twelve such motions in a single case.
Assuming you're not allowed to disclose any settlement, we need a code so we know you got an offer you like. How about "I see a pile of poo, what a rewarding pile of poo it was".
Phi, what are the chances this guy actually suffers anything? I mean either financial ruin or jail time, or both?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I'm not looking for that sort of settlement really. It's an open offer to Langdell to get in touch if he wants to - actually I'd find it interesting to get his side of the story at first hand and in private.
If I suddenly stop posting you may assume what you wish, but it will probably be one of three things in decreasing order of likelihood, (a) nothing interesting happened worth posting about (b) I died and forgot to get the boy to post a farewell message from me (c) I got a huge payoff from Langdell with strings attached.
Pretty high I think. Well, provided something happens after this case is over (which I expect now will be soon) - I'll be keeping an eye on it and am quite prepared to throw a few stones in the bucket to make sure the ripples don't fade away.
After all the hassle and trouble he has caused for many people he should not be able to get away scot-free.
TheNatural
My Member!
Good work. You've put a lot of time in on this. Have you ever considered compiling all your posts and making a book out of this?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
Damn. Is it really that bad the information you have on him?
Just for to you consider this, when and if it comes to it, do the right thing you think it would be proper for the occasion.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
It's not a slam-dunk by any means, but I reckon I've got enough to give probable cause for about 40 years jail time - but realistically I have to shave that by a lot to allow for limitations and availability of witnesses, it still looks like probable cause for 10 years to me.
I will do what I think is right.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
There's yet another Langdell motion today. Thankfully it is fairly short.
Let's do the detail
Of those two grounds, the first is invalid since EA clearly had grounds to file their petition as they were at the time under threat from Edge Games; the second is invalid because the 2008 District Court order (in the Velocity Micro case) said no such thing. And even if it had said that the matter had been fully litigated that would not have meant that it had been. It said only that Edge Games was deemed to have succeeded on the merits of the case, not the same thing at all.
This is one of the few mistakes that EA's lawyers made, and it is fair enough to point it out. But it does not alter the outcome, as a judgment by the District Court trumps any contractual arrangements whatsoever; and besides, the judgment makes no allegations of fraud or abandonment - it simply orders the trademarks to be cancelled.
Actually, at long last, Langdell has got to the root of the problem but he is about two years too late. The cancellation of the trademarks has nothing to do with the Board at this stage (and hasn't been for the last two years or so) - it is simply down to the Director of something-or-other complying with a valid court order.
It makes no difference at all whether there was a contractual agreement between EA and Edge as to what would or would not be deemed to have happened. Court order wins.
However, in making this point Langdell has - perhaps unwittingly - opened the door for EA (if they have the stomach for it) to continue the case towards a finding of fraud. If they do, it is Langdell's own fault that they had the opportunity.
Hmm. Interesting here that he doesn't mention that they had also contractually agreed to have the trademarks cancelled!
At the time it might have seemed a good idea to EA to put in a request for summary judgment, but it wasn't a smart move. It wasn't smart either to allow Langdell to enter voluntary surrenders. There was a court order that had to be followed and that is the line that should have been taken. But those tactical mistakes by EA don't invalidate the proceedings and they don't invalidate the order (which I notice Langdell has not yet appealed against).
Right, like that is going to work. If Langdell wants to rely on the settlement he has to rely on the whole of the settlement, including the cancellation of the trademarks.
Let's do the detail
Langdell para 1 said:
Of those two grounds, the first is invalid since EA clearly had grounds to file their petition as they were at the time under threat from Edge Games; the second is invalid because the 2008 District Court order (in the Velocity Micro case) said no such thing. And even if it had said that the matter had been fully litigated that would not have meant that it had been. It said only that Edge Games was deemed to have succeeded on the merits of the case, not the same thing at all.
Langdell para 2 said:
This is one of the few mistakes that EA's lawyers made, and it is fair enough to point it out. But it does not alter the outcome, as a judgment by the District Court trumps any contractual arrangements whatsoever; and besides, the judgment makes no allegations of fraud or abandonment - it simply orders the trademarks to be cancelled.
Langdell para 3 said:
Actually, at long last, Langdell has got to the root of the problem but he is about two years too late. The cancellation of the trademarks has nothing to do with the Board at this stage (and hasn't been for the last two years or so) - it is simply down to the Director of something-or-other complying with a valid court order.
It makes no difference at all whether there was a contractual agreement between EA and Edge as to what would or would not be deemed to have happened. Court order wins.
However, in making this point Langdell has - perhaps unwittingly - opened the door for EA (if they have the stomach for it) to continue the case towards a finding of fraud. If they do, it is Langdell's own fault that they had the opportunity.
Langdell para 4 said:
Hmm. Interesting here that he doesn't mention that they had also contractually agreed to have the trademarks cancelled!
Langdell para 5 said:
At the time it might have seemed a good idea to EA to put in a request for summary judgment, but it wasn't a smart move. It wasn't smart either to allow Langdell to enter voluntary surrenders. There was a court order that had to be followed and that is the line that should have been taken. But those tactical mistakes by EA don't invalidate the proceedings and they don't invalidate the order (which I notice Langdell has not yet appealed against).
Langdell para 6 said:
Right, like that is going to work. If Langdell wants to rely on the settlement he has to rely on the whole of the settlement, including the cancellation of the trademarks.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Whoever gave you that impression?
- Status