• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

gabbo
Member
(03-03-2012, 08:50 PM)
gabbo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Alextended

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.

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.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(03-09-2012, 05:21 PM)
phisheep's Avatar
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.
Seraphinianus
Banned
(03-09-2012, 05:25 PM)

Originally Posted by phisheep

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.


wat

shit just got really weird
JakkuFurosu
Member
(03-09-2012, 05:28 PM)
JakkuFurosu's Avatar

Originally Posted by phisheep

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.

Thread on top page figured hmmm something mightve happened...

needless to say im not disappointed, a little wtf is this, but not disappointed
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
(03-09-2012, 05:29 PM)
Slightly Live's Avatar
How far down does this rabbit hole really go?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(03-30-2012, 11:10 PM)
phisheep's Avatar
We now have something very close to a decision. It isn't quite final, but it is very close and Langdell has 20 days to respond.

It isn't a judgment, it's a series of rulings from the interlocutory attorney. But it is a little masterpiece, condensing months of motions into five pages of stark and dismissive play-by-the-rules law. Very nicely done.

Just a reminder if you haven't been paying attention or have quite understandably forgotten what is going on: there are four motions active in this case, they are outlined along with my predictions in post 385 above.

Let's take them one-by-one:

1) Who is going to be Lead Counsel?

Langdell sought to appoint himself, twice. Future asked the Board to decide.

The ruling quite properly points out that

Tim Langdell of Edge Games, Inc. is not an attorney, and thus is precluded from serving as legal counsel for any party in this proceeding

And concludes that it is not feasible to appoint lead counsel because Future and Edge "have adverse positions".

There will be no lead counsel. Which doesn't matter because, as we'll see shortly, there will be no trial.

2) Can Edge Games withdraw its surrender of registrations 3559342 and 2219837?

This is where Langdell tried to reverse his surrender of these trademarks (which both Future and EA objected to) on the grounds that they were part-owned by Future and he had no authority to surrender them.

That motion was just plain denied (and in a footnote (footnote 5 to page 5) - that's pretty damning!). Edge's reply to EA and future was quite rightly dismissed as untimely, too many pages and no proof of service without the need to mention that it was total crap.

3) Can Edge Games reverse the division of Registration 2219837?

This is where Langdell is trying desperately to drag Future Publishing into the fraud allegations.

Motion denied. that simple. Not gonna work. And in a footnote too!

4) Do the trademarks get cancelled?

Now we are at the meaty bit. the District Court ordered (pursuant to a settlement) that the five trademarks at issue be cancelled, and Langdell has been wriggling ever since. But this ruling says that:

The Board is clearly bound by the mandate issued by way of the final judgment, and has no power or authority to deviate therefrom.

(as I suggested back in post #99)

... and dismisses in eight words all the thousands of words that Langdell has expended on this ...

Edge Games, Inc. has asserted no valid authority

The last bit is worth quoting in full. Langdell has 20 days to assert his arguments before the federal court AND get certified copies of that back to the USPTO or he is stuffed.

So he is stuffed. It ain't going to happen.

It is apparent from the record and prevailing authorities that any relief from the final judgment of the District Court that Edge Games, Inc. seeks, whether based on ownership of one or more of the involved registrations, based on alleged false or misleading statements made to the District Court, or based on other allegations or theories, lies solely in that court of law. In view thereof, Edge Games, Inc., is allowed until twenty (20) days from the mailing date of this order in which to file a paper herein notifying the Board as to whether Edge Games, Inc. has filed any motion in the District Court seeking reconsideration, review or modification of the final judgment rendered therein, or has pursued any available form of relief from judgment in the District Court. In the event that Edge Games, Inc. did file any such motion, it is directed to include in its response a copy of the decision issued by the District Court with respect to or in response to such motion. In the event that Edge Games, Inc. fails to file with the Board as directed herein, or if its filing indicates that it has not prevailed on a post-judgment motion in the District Court, the Board will issue an order in fulfillment of the District Court’s October 8, 2010 final judgment, directing the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks to cancel U.S. Registration Nos. 2219837, 2251584, 3105816, 3559342 and 3381826.

And that is pretty much what I expected. And all in five pages - beautiful.

Trouble for Langdell is that he can't go back to the District Court, because if he does he faces the fraud depositions and just digs himself deeper which is really not a good idea.

These five trademarks are as good as dead. But on the other hand that's what I thought six months ago. Plus there are probably civil cases to come in the UK and Germany and probably criminal charges in the UK and USA.

It ain't all over yet. There's the European and criminal bit to go, but we're getting there.

See you guys in about 20 days plus a bit for the 'dog ate my homework' stuff.
oracrest
Member
(03-30-2012, 11:32 PM)
oracrest's Avatar
When all is said and done, we should throw a party!!
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(03-30-2012, 11:43 PM)
phisheep's Avatar

Originally Posted by oracrest

When all is said and done, we should throw a party!!

Well maybe. There's a lot to be sorted out to get it all said and done though. Too many tentacles.
madmook
Admire my girth. Mmm.
(03-30-2012, 11:43 PM)
madmook's Avatar

Originally Posted by phisheep

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.

Maybe he knows about karma now.
Seraphinianus
Banned
(03-31-2012, 02:21 AM)

Originally Posted by phisheep

Too many tentacles.


that's what she said huhuhuh
gabbo
Member
(03-31-2012, 07:07 AM)
gabbo's Avatar

Originally Posted by phisheep

Well maybe. There's a lot to be sorted out to get it all said and done though. Too many tentacles.

I say we wait until he's in jail/files for bankruptcy before we crack open the good stuff/party hats, and I feel that could be the better part of years.
IrishNinja
(03-31-2012, 07:42 AM)
IrishNinja's Avatar
as ever, you're a peach for this, phisheep. justice is slow, but it's coming for you, Tim.

poor Phoenix had to wait like 7 years too
IISANDERII
Member
(03-31-2012, 07:45 AM)
IISANDERII's Avatar
It's scary that a half-wit was able to get away with this for so long. Imagine what the competent profiteers are getting away with.
Rokal
Member
(03-31-2012, 07:49 AM)
Rokal's Avatar
How sad is it that after over two years of legal wrangling, this case against an obvious trademark troll still hasn't been resolved.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(04-01-2012, 10:14 AM)
phisheep's Avatar

Originally Posted by gabbo

I say we wait until he's in jail/files for bankruptcy before we crack open the good stuff/party hats, and I feel that could be the better part of years.

It may not be that long. There's a lot of evidence in the public domain already, and criminal justice tends to work a load faster than the civil courts.

Originally Posted by IISANDERII

It's scary that a half-wit was able to get away with this for so long. Imagine what the competent profiteers are getting away with.

It's probably unfair on Langdell to label him a half-wit. It takes a particular (though not necessarily admirable) kind of smarts to waltz off with £300,000 of somebody else's money on a foundation of pretty well nothing. He's lost it a bit in recent years only because technology and ChaosEdge caught up with him and to be frank he has done himself no favours with his trial tactics - which worked in the Velocity Micro case but failed spectacularly against EA and Future, only because of the amount of evidence against him that had been uncovered. He must, at some stage, have been a very persuasive character.

Originally Posted by Rokal

How sad is it that after over two years of legal wrangling, this case against an obvious trademark troll still hasn't been resolved.

I'm in two minds about this. Clearly there are problems in how long it has taken to bring this case anywhere near to a conclusion, but much of this is down to legal safeguards that are in place to protect the normal honest guy pursuing his case through the courts. About six months of this was down to a mistake by EA's counsel in not insisting on the USPTO following the District Court judgment, which opened the gate for all the recent batch of motions. As to the rest, it was undoubtedly Langdell's right to sue in the District Court (and that action went about as fast and furious as it is possible to get), and the USPTO TTAB is unfortunately bound by the rule that it cannot find people in contempt on preliminary motions. That, I think, is a rule that needs to be looked at again.


Anyhow, it's time for a look at what Langdell's tactical options are right now. There aren't many of them.

1) He could attempt to challenge the TTAB ruling before the Board. There's only any point in this if he can overturn the ruling that TTAB has no option but to follow the District Court judgment. But since the Board has disclaimed jurisdiction it won't work. It won't even buy him any time, because the clock is ticking already. So pointless even to try.

2) He could return to the District Court and appeal the judgment on the same grounds he has set before TTAB in his recent motions. That would in effect mean throwing himself upon the mercy of Judge Alsup, and given what Judge Alsup has said already mercy to Langdell is not at the forefront of his mind. The arguments that Langdell has presented to TTAB for ignoring the District Court ruling are not sound, and in order to get any sort of ruling he would have to face immediate deposition on EA's allegations of fraud and put himself at risk of charges of contempt (the District Court does not labour under the same handicap that TTAB does with regard to contempt in the face of the Court). This would be a really bad option.

3) He could do nothing. Just let the clock tick away and lose the US trademarks. This is what I suspect he is likely to do, as there are no other immediate options that will rescue him. Trouble is, that still leaves the door open, and the evidence available, for other actions to follow.

4) He could, however, go further. Trouble is, there are other (civil and criminal) actions on the horizon in the US and in Europe. Langdell has a chance, a slim one admittedly, of avoiding at least some of these actions if he:
- does nothing in regard to the TTAB ruling
- files to surrender all of his remaining US and European trademarks
- voluntarily winds up his companies and closes his websites
- repays the (approximately) £300k that he took from Future Publishing
None of this entirely removes the possibility of further actions, but it does make it far less likely that he will be pursued for them.

It is, I think, going to be an interesting 20 days for Langdell.
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
(04-01-2012, 03:11 PM)
Slightly Live's Avatar
I really want to see this man slapped with criminal convictions. The man has done harm, not just to the industry, it's reputation and to various companies but he's profited significantly off the backs of other people.

He's a lying, cheating, weasily con-man who deserves no sympathy and a hardly legal and criminal ass kicking by the same systems he's perverted and distorted.

I am immensely enjoying watching him try to outrun his inevitable fate.
gabbo
Member
(04-01-2012, 05:41 PM)
gabbo's Avatar

Originally Posted by phisheep

It may not be that long. There's a lot of evidence in the public domain already, and criminal justice tends to work a load faster than the civil courts.

Doesn't he still have a lot of court dates to make in the UK?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(04-01-2012, 09:12 PM)
phisheep's Avatar

Originally Posted by gabbo

Doesn't he still have a lot of court dates to make in the UK?

Well, there's certainly a lot going on - though it isn't so easy to track things in the UK courts as it is in the US.

There's the contempt case that Future were given leave to bring, and whatever case for damages for breach they bring on the back of the Chancery judgment.

Also, it seems that all of Langdell's UK trademarks are under attack. One application, 2540453, is being opposed and a revocation case was raised on 15th February 2012 against all the remaining ones (so far as I can tell - the trademark system just crashed on me, I'll check the rest when it comes back up). I imagine these will be on the grounds of abandonment as suggested in the Chancery case.

Time I updated the OP again.

Now, Langdell's usual approach when attacked is quite understandably to defend - but it'll do him no good to accumulate more damning judgments where he has attempted to defend the indefensible, especially if he is lying to do it. So far the judgments against him have fallen (just) short of judicial findings of fraud/perjury etc etc - but if he continues this way it is probably only a matter of time before one hits home.

That's why I suggest his best current tactic is to shut up shop completely and fast (and settle expensively with Future). It might be humiliating, but it is less risky.

EDIT: System is back up. It isn't quite all of Langdell's marks that are currently under threat. Whoever is seeking to revoke them (Future, I guess) has missed two: TM 2520453 KILLER EDGE RACING registered to "EDGERACERS", which is Langdell by another name; and TM 2517177 EDGE OF TWILIGHT registered to Edge Games. All the others are registered (in the UK) to Edge Interactive Media.
Last edited by phisheep; 04-01-2012 at 09:18 PM.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(04-18-2012, 12:08 PM)
phisheep's Avatar
You’ll remember maybe that the Board gave Langdell 20 days to challenge the District Court ruling or lose the trademarks.

Well, true to form, he has done nothing of the kind. With two days to go he has filed another three motions (and there’s nothing that I can see that suggests he has filed anything in the District Court).

There’s a lot of verbiage in these. Take a deep breath and let’s go for it!

1) Motion for Board to reconsider its denial of Motion to Reverse division of Reg 2219837


This is the one where Langdell is trying to drag Future’s part of the trademark into the proceedings and get Future tarred with the fraud brush. Background is that the trademark was divided after the Board proceedings started, but before the Distrtict Court case. Langdell is clearly a bit miffed that this motion was flatly denied in a footnote.

He makes two main arguments.

First, that since Future’s opposition to his motion was dismissed as untimely, the motion was unopposed and should therefore be granted. That line fails entirely, since Langdell has forgotten that EA also opposed the motion (on 24th October) and their opposition still stands.

Second, and in line with his original argument, that the trademark should not have been divided while proceedings were active. He sort of has a point here and might have got away with it but for his own tactical naivety – you see, the registration had already been divided by the time he brought the District Court proceedings, so there’s no possible doubt that the District Court order refers only to Langdell’s share of the mark. Besides, he already argued this point before the Board and the motion was denied.

It’ll either be denied again, or more likely ruled out of order since the proceedings are suspended. I guess the latter, as that could be done in a sentence without needing any analysis.

2) Motion for the Board to reconsider it’s denial of Motion to reverse surrender of Registrations 3559342 & 2219837

This is the one where Langdell is trying to undo his surrender of two other marks that he claims are partly-owned by Future.

This is just a silly motion to bring, as the Board had already (on 25th August 2011) vacated its previous order to cancel these marks by voluntary surrender.

So this motion, even if granted, would achieve nothing. Probably why it got denied in the first place. Besides, like the first one, this motion is out of order because proceedings are suspended.


Now the biggie …

3) Response to the Board’s Order of 30 March 2012

This is dangerous for Langdell. It isn’t a proper motion, it is a direct challenge to a court order. Arguably he might be found in contempt (37 CFR 2.127 (f) which prevents the Board finding persons in contempt only applies to motions so far as I can tell).

It is a document stuffed full of falsehoods, despite the fact that he claims to have taken advice from some proper lawyers (Baker Hostetler who are not, though, representing him).

Originally Posted by Langdell para 1

In its March 30, 2012 order the Board required Co-Registrant Edge Games Inc (“EDGE”) to file a motion in the District Court seeking “reconsideration, review or modification” or any other form of relief from the void District Court order of October 8, 2010.

No it didn’t. It simply said that unless he did so the trademarks would be cancelled. Different thing entirely.

Originally Posted by Langdell para 1

However, what the Board required EDGE to do is impossible and hence unlawful, and certainly unfair and inequitable. It is not possible to seek relief from a void order

Yes it is. That’s pretty well exactly what Future did when they intervened in this cancellation case for example.

It’s beside the point anyway, because as I’ve rehearsed above the District Court judgment is not void. It isn’t even apparently void.

Para 2 drifts off into asserting that Langdell has proper legal advice so his arguments should be taken seriously and has a sly dig at EA, claiming that they too are representing themselves (which isn’t true, they’re using an in-house attorney, which is entirely different).

Originally Posted by Langdell para 3

we believe the Board’s order of March 30, 2012 is without precedent in the history of the Board

Quite probably. There’s only one Tim Langdell, and unusual times need unusual measures.

The remainder of the 10 or so pages bangs on interminably about what can and cannot be done with void judgments. All besides the point, since the judgment is not void.

The only argument that Langdell advances is that Future were "a necessary and an indispensable party" to the District Court proceedings. Again, for reasons I have gone through before that is probably not true, even if it were it would not necessarily void the judgment, and even if it did the place to challenge that is in the District Court not the Board. He does try to argue that the judgment is void on its face citing

Originally Posted by Plotitsa v Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal App 3d 755, 761

“It is well settled that a judgment or order which is void on its face [is one] which requires only an inspection of the judgment-roll or record to show its invalidity”

And thereby shooting himself in the foot, because in order to establish Langdell’s argument you would need recourse to private contractual arrangements between Langdell and Future which were not on the record of the Court, or indeed of the USPTO, at the time.

The rest is tedious sludge and I am too tired to go through it now. EDIT: read the rest, see post #424 for the only other significant argument.

But like the others, this motion/response is out of order.


Let’s see what happens in a few days time.
Last edited by phisheep; 04-18-2012 at 08:06 PM.
subversus
I've done nothing with my life except eat and fap
(04-18-2012, 12:11 PM)
subversus's Avatar
Kafka would die of envy if he read this thread.
McNum
Member
(04-18-2012, 12:22 PM)
McNum's Avatar
Once again, thank you for keeping us updated.

So, I take it that with this, the option of just taking the hit and walk away is pretty much off the table? I don't really get all of it, but from what you say, his best option would have been to cut his losses to avoid anyone looking too closely at the rest of his business. Which... he didn't, and now they probably will. It'd be sad if it wasn't so funny. EA is doing some fine work here.
Droog
Member
(04-18-2012, 12:34 PM)
Droog's Avatar
The end of the beginning of the end. Langdell just needs to accept what's coming to him.

Thanks for keeping us all updated phisheep! Definitely my favourite and most interesting subbed thread!
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(04-18-2012, 01:21 PM)
phisheep's Avatar

Originally Posted by McNum

So, I take it that with this, the option of just taking the hit and walk away is pretty much off the table? I don't really get all of it, but from what you say, his best option would have been to cut his losses to avoid anyone looking too closely at the rest of his business. Which... he didn't, and now they probably will. It'd be sad if it wasn't so funny. EA is doing some fine work here.

I think he has blown it with these recent submissions, especially the one challenging the Board's ruling.

In post #415 I did suggest some tactics for him, listing them as usual worst-first - and he went for option 1. The only thing that has going for it is the potential for a bit more delay, it does nothing to persuade anybody that he has seen the light sufficiently to make further actions/prosecutions not worth bothering about.

It's the pincer movement of EA and Future that's doing good here - EA made one big tactical error about 6 months ago, but Future waded in and made it good - and Future made a mistake early on that EA managed to fix. this whole thing is so slippery I'm not sure that either would have been able to swing it on their own. Langdell must surely be kicking himself for ever letting Future near this case, but it was him that provoked it. To be fair to EA their trial lawyer for the District Court did just fine, and their in-house lawyer for the daily grind stuff is being very responsive - it just went wrong briefly when they ended up with a trial lawyer doing day-to-day USPTO stuff which he probably wasn't accustomed to.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(04-18-2012, 03:50 PM)
phisheep's Avatar
I've read a bit more.

After all the guff about (allegedly) void court orders, there's an extra bit of argument in Langdell's response to the board.

Originally Posted by Langdell para 20

EDGE also notes that by virtue of the doctrine of Assignee Estoppel, Future is in any event precluded (estopped) from challenging or attacking any of at least two, and we say three, of the five trademark registrations that Future is a co-owner of since those marks were assigned to Future by EDGE. Future thus had no right in law to file any motion before the Board to ask the Board to cancel any of the registrations that Future co-owns, and consequently Future is estopped from either asking the Board to affirm or recognize the District Court order, or to in any way at all adjoin with Petitioners in seeking cancellation of the marks in question. Consequently, while the Board was correct to decide to bring Future in as co-defendant in the instant proceedings, EDGE respectfully suggests that due to the doctrine of assignee estoppel, the Board should have instructed Future that it may only act in the role of a defendant in these proceedings (that is, seeking only to defend the registrations from cancellation by Petitioner), and that Future is estopped from acting as if it were a co-petitioner with a position adverse in any way to that of its co-defendant, EDGE. And, pertinently, only Future, and not Petitioners, motioned the Board to compel it to act on the void judgment and thus there is no valid motion.

Interesting argument. Three big problems with it.

First, the Supreme Court ruled in Lear v Adkins (1969!) that assignee estoppel is not good law. Really, Tim, if you're going to go all legal on us, at least use up-to-date books. Even if it were good law, then it would not stand up in a case, like this one, of alleged fraud on the part of the assignor. Of course, now that Langdell has raised this, it brings up the business of assignor estoppel, which is still good law and precludes Langdell from denying his assignments to Future (and so yet another reason he cannot unwind the division of registration that he is seeking to).

Second, Future is entitled as a defendant to defend its own best interests - it is not obliged to, and neither can the court compel it to, defend Langdell's interests.

Third, it doesn't matter in the least whether or not there was a valid motion before the Board to compel it to act on the District Court's judgment - the judgment is binding on the USPTO regardless of any other motions/proceedings whatsoever.

This really is last-ditch stuff.

EDIT: Here's my prediction

It might take a week or two (It ought not to take longer) for the Board to consider these submissions - ideally they would just ignore them, but they are likely to play cautious. But after that I expect to see a one or two page ruling that
(a) dismisses all of Langdell's motions as out of order and without further explanation
(b) orders cancellation of the five trademarks in issue pursuant to the District Court judgment (I hope it says 'forthwith' but it will probably wimp out and say 'in due course')
(c) possibly finds Langdell in contempt

EDIT AGAIN: Tactical options available to the parties

For Langdell, assuming he hasn't yet filed anything in the District Court, there's only ONE sane option, which is to shut the fuck up already. All he's doing is damage to himself. And there's no available route for appeal either, he cut that off with his ill-advised (but entertaining for us) venture into the District Court.

For EA and Future, there's nothing here that needs to be responded to - any response will just spin things out - let the Board rule them out of order.
Last edited by phisheep; 04-18-2012 at 04:54 PM. Reason: Add prediction
Magna_Mixalis
Member
(04-18-2012, 05:21 PM)
Magna_Mixalis's Avatar
@phisheep

Thanks for the updates and for the explanations; though the estoppel stuff went totally over my head (Black's law dictionary and wiki, here I come!).

And if you're ever in the LA area, drinks are on me. Maybe we can (hopefully) organize a GAF Langdell send-off party. It sounds like he'll be doing time once this is all said and done.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(04-18-2012, 05:39 PM)
phisheep's Avatar

Originally Posted by Magna_Mixalis

@phisheep

Thanks for the updates and for the explanations; though the estoppel stuff went totally over my head (Black's law dictionary and wiki, here I come!).

And if you're ever in the LA area, drinks are on me. Maybe we can (hopefully) organize a GAF Langdell send-off party. It sounds like he'll be doing time once this is all said and done.

Estoppel isn't all that hard to understand (except when Langdell tries to explain it), though it is a bit brainbending first time you encounter it.

The idea is that if you do or say something that another party reasonably relies on, you can't subsequently deny (or at least rely on a denial) of that in court. It comes in all sorts of flavours - proprietary estoppel, promissory estoppel, assignor estoppel and so on - but they all come down to the same thing - which is that if you made a promise (with your fingers crossed behind your back so you didn't really mean it), you are in law kind of stuck with it. It depends a bit on the nature of the promise - usually in common law it is some sort of contract-shaped thing.

For example, and relevant to the case:

- the idea behind assignee estoppel was that if you took a license for a patent etc from someone for valuable consideration you could not then challenge the validity of that patent in order to get it for free (but that's what the supreme court ruled against in 1969, largely because it is the licensees/assignees of an IP property who are in the best position to know whether it is valid or not)

- the idea behind assignor estoppel is that if you assign, or license, something to someone you cannot then deny them the right you have assigned even if you got the thing by fraud etc in the first place. That doesn't stop somebody else who has a prior right from enforcing it, but the fraudster themselves can't use that argument.

EDIT: one of the reasons it is confusing to start with is that it falls somewhere between being a rule of law and being a rule of court procedure, and nobody's quite sure what it is (and it varies between the different flavours) - that's one of the drawbacks of the common law being developed from what happens in court. Just bear in mind that nobody else knows exactly what it is either, and you'll do just fine.
Last edited by phisheep; 04-18-2012 at 06:06 PM.
Magna_Mixalis
Member
(04-18-2012, 06:34 PM)
Magna_Mixalis's Avatar
@phisheep

Thanks for the explanation. Oddly enough, it makes sense now.
gabbo
Member
(04-18-2012, 07:14 PM)
gabbo's Avatar
This case seems to be getting close to its final Edge™.
Some of the legal jargon is difficult to wrap my head around (thank god I decided against law school), but it's enticing to think of Langdell finally being brought down by the farce he's put on in the legal system.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(04-18-2012, 07:20 PM)
phisheep's Avatar

Originally Posted by gabbo

This case seems to be getting close to its final Edge™.
Some of the legal jargon is difficult to wrap my head around (thank god I decided against law school), but it's enticing to think of Langdell finally being brought down by the farce he's put on in the legal system.

Sorry if I've slipped into too much jargon from time to time. It might not be entirely unavoidable, but if there's something specific you don't understand and want explaining, just ask here and I will give it my best shot.
cilonen
Member
(04-18-2012, 07:22 PM)
cilonen's Avatar
Been following this, thanks for the continued great summations & break-downs phisheep.
jman2050
Member
(04-18-2012, 07:30 PM)
jman2050's Avatar
I feel like I've taken a crash course in law school reading this thread. Interesting stuff phisheep.
faceless007
AAA ETHER
(04-18-2012, 07:53 PM)
Awesome and entertaining write-ups. Thanks phisheep.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(04-18-2012, 07:56 PM)
phisheep's Avatar

Originally Posted by jman2050

I feel like I've taken a crash course in law school reading this thread. Interesting stuff phisheep.

Must admit I've been giving a bit of thought into putting this into book form (as somebody suggested further up the thread) - not so much as a Langdell-bash as an exercise in understanding how civil procedure works/doesn't work and how to play the tactics - which is something woefully undertaught in the law schools I have come across.

Gonna be damned hard to slice it up the right way though. I think I will leave it until the fireworks are over and see then if it can somehow be broken up into chapter-length chunks
gabbo
Member
(04-18-2012, 08:06 PM)
gabbo's Avatar

Originally Posted by phisheep

Sorry if I've slipped into too much jargon from time to time. It might not be entirely unavoidable, but if there's something specific you don't understand and want explaining, just ask here and I will give it my best shot.

The one thing (estoppel), you ended up explaining anyway so it's not a big deal. Some times I just re-read a few lines to gleam a better understanding of what is being said.
It hasn't happened before, and I think it has to do with my brain attempting to comprehend Langdell's actions (in chronological order up to this point) without this happening:
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(04-18-2012, 08:14 PM)
phisheep's Avatar

Originally Posted by gabbo

It hasn't happened before, and I think it has to do with my brain attempting to comprehend Langdell's actions (in chronological order up to this point) without this happening:

I think I understand that. I keep a little A4 sheet of which motions relate to what and on what dates, and coloured in in red and black, which would probably help you guys. But I'm not going to publish it in case it also helps you-know-who (like the way he missed EA's opposition in his latest motion).

I'll be quite happy to publish that, and indexed back to the original motions and to my commentaries on them, when it is all done and dusted.
Soneet
Member
(04-19-2012, 09:33 AM)
Soneet's Avatar
phisheep, you're so freaking cool. Seriously, if I wasn't so old and already invested most of my brain into learning programming, I would choose to become a lawyer after reading your posts just so I could read the stuff you're reading (and understand it on the same level). You're like a Phoenix Wright in real life and find contradictions everywhere.

So cool.
Jintor
Lit himself on fire to get
a mod to tag him
(04-19-2012, 10:30 AM)
Jintor's Avatar
Three and a half years into my legal course and I finally understand estoppel (to be another name for a concept I already knew, but never mind that). Thanks Phi!
LordAlu
Member
(04-19-2012, 11:15 AM)
LordAlu's Avatar

Originally Posted by phisheep

Must admit I've been giving a bit of thought into putting this into book form (as somebody suggested further up the thread) - not so much as a Langdell-bash as an exercise in understanding how civil procedure works/doesn't work and how to play the tactics - which is something woefully undertaught in the law schools I have come across.

Gonna be damned hard to slice it up the right way though. I think I will leave it until the fireworks are over and see then if it can somehow be broken up into chapter-length chunks

I'd gladly buy this. I've been following this thread quietly and have been consistently in awe at your write-ups and explanations. It's been a fascinating read, and your constantly updating OP is a thing of beauty. Thank you for keeping up on this!
jetjevons
Bish loves my games!
(04-19-2012, 01:47 PM)
jetjevons's Avatar

Originally Posted by phisheep

Must admit I've been giving a bit of thought into putting this into book form (as somebody suggested further up the thread) - not so much as a Langdell-bash as an exercise in understanding how civil procedure works/doesn't work and how to play the tactics - which is something woefully undertaught in the law schools I have come across.

Gonna be damned hard to slice it up the right way though. I think I will leave it until the fireworks are over and see then if it can somehow be broken up into chapter-length chunks

I'd Kickstart the heck out of it.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(04-19-2012, 05:52 PM)
phisheep's Avatar

Originally Posted by Soneet

Seriously, if I wasn't so old and already invested most of my brain into learning programming, I would choose to become a lawyer

Well, I didn't start learning law until my late forties, so there may be time for you yet.

EDIT: Also, I started out programming. It's good training for law in terms of the precision needed. Though I guess my type of programming (write it out on coding sheets, send it off to get punched onto cards, shove it into the machine and wait a day each time for a compile to run) was better training for the speed of the civil courts!
Last edited by phisheep; 04-19-2012 at 09:04 PM.
Magna_Mixalis
Member
(04-19-2012, 05:57 PM)
Magna_Mixalis's Avatar

Originally Posted by phisheep

Well, I didn't start learning law until my late forties, so there may be time for you yet.

Damn you, phisheep. God damn you...

<Starts eying California Bar exam dates>
Stinkles
sober, clothed, willing
(04-19-2012, 06:00 PM)
Stinkles's Avatar

Originally Posted by phisheep

I think I understand that. I keep a little A4 sheet of which motions relate to what and on what dates, and coloured in in red and black, which would probably help you guys. But I'm not going to publish it in case it also helps you-know-who (like the way he missed EA's opposition in his latest motion).

I'll be quite happy to publish that, and indexed back to the original motions and to my commentaries on them, when it is all done and dusted.

Call it "Edge of Madness: What's in a Name?" But watch out, you might get sued.
edgefusion
Member
(04-19-2012, 06:04 PM)
edgefusion's Avatar

Originally Posted by phisheep

Must admit I've been giving a bit of thought into putting this into book form (as somebody suggested further up the thread) - not so much as a Langdell-bash as an exercise in understanding how civil procedure works/doesn't work and how to play the tactics - which is something woefully undertaught in the law schools I have come across.

Gonna be damned hard to slice it up the right way though. I think I will leave it until the fireworks are over and see then if it can somehow be broken up into chapter-length chunks

I'd buy it. It would make a great gift for my mum who loves stuff like this.
Leucrota
Member
(04-19-2012, 06:10 PM)
Leucrota's Avatar
I do not understand this thread at all, and I wish I did because it is so well documented.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
(04-19-2012, 06:11 PM)
Cerebral Assassin's Avatar

Originally Posted by OuterWorldVoice

Call it "Edge of Madness: What's in a Name?" But watch out, you might get sued.

Nah, it should be "Living off the Edge" or "Tim Langdell is a **!*".
Tremis
This man does his research.
(04-19-2012, 06:42 PM)
A book based on this case might be really cool for the reasons you mentioned. Thanks for the updates Phisheep!

As a side note, I feel like there may be a large element of sociopathic behavior going on with he-who-must-not-be-named (for fear of litigation). Anyone else get that impression?
Adam Blade
WWKC
(04-19-2012, 06:49 PM)
Adam Blade's Avatar
phisheep is ancient???
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(04-19-2012, 06:52 PM)
phisheep's Avatar
Yep. Certainly is. Can't you tell from the half-moon glasses?
Deadbeat
Member
(04-19-2012, 06:54 PM)
Deadbeat's Avatar
phisheep is not old, hes just wise.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(04-19-2012, 06:57 PM)
phisheep's Avatar
Both actually.

Thread Tools