BobTheFork
Member
What a great way to end of work week. I always love reading the updates.
-
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
I've got two brothers and a sister in law school I'd recommend this to.
This guy is like herpes. Just when you think it's under control, it rears its ugly head (I speak hypothetically of course).
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
That's Langdell's wife.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
It’s 11th September. Amongst other things that means it is now three years since EA first took action against Langdell for cancellation of his trademarks.
It is also 19 days since Langdell put his last motion in. Out of the 20 days allowed to respond.
And nothing has happened since. Mind you, some of the things that haven’t happened are quite interesting …
1) EA and Future have not responded to Langdell’s filing
There are several possible reasons for this:
(a) Langdell didn’t tell them about it (entirely possible and true to form)
(b) EA and Future are not paying attention (I think this unlikely)
(c) deliberate decision not to respond
I suspect they have deliberately not responded, so as not to allow Langdell any more time to, for example, respond to their response or bring up some other motion. As it stands it is open to the court to judge Langdell’s motion on its merits or, as may be the case, lack of merits.
2) Langdell has filed nothing in the District Court
It isn’t a huge surprise that Langdell has not filed an amended motion to have the District Court’s judgment declared void. As I’ve mentioned before it would be an uphill struggle to find an attorney willing to make this filing faced, as they would be, with professional sanctions – even if Langdell had truth and justice on his side. As it is, the climb is not so much uphill as vertical and sheer and without benefit of handholds.
What is surprising is that Langdell has not even filed a change of attorney with the District Court. That’s the first thing any attorney would do, as it helps get his bills paid. So probably Langdell doesn’t have an attorney at all, whatever he said in his last filing with the Board.
3) Nobody has petitioned the Commissioner of Trademarks
Which probably means that EA and Future are content to leave things to the Board to sort out.
In this context, it is probably safe to nitpick through Langdell’s latest motion point by point. Langdell can’t and EA/Future won’t respond on the basis of anything I say. Plus, I do want to clarify one of Langdell’s points that I think may be my fault!
Para 1 is boring, factual and introductory.
Para 2 claims that the District Court’s order striking Langdell’s motion (to declare the original court order void) is invalid as Edge Games was not served with the motion and had no notice of it. In the course of this Langdell accuses EA and Future of “deceit and abuse of process”.
More of this later.
Para 3. claims that since Langdell’s motion was dismissed on a technicality (that of Langdell not being an attorney) it is not a final decision. In the course of this Langdell accuses EA and Future of “deliberately misrepresentation of the facts [sic]”.
He misses the point that although the Court’s dismissal of the motion to strike may not be final, in its absence the original court order is final.
Paras 4-10 bang on a lot about whether Edge Games had proper service and/or notice of the motion to strike, on three grounds:
(a) that e-filing through the court to Langdell’s attorneys of record (the Lanier Law Firm) doesn’t count, as “petitioners are very aware that the Lanier Law Firm ceased to represent [Langdell] in October 2010”. Now, I don’t know what it is like in the USA, but over here if you serve somebody’s lawyer of record that counts as proper service – indeed to do otherwise might be improper. It’s Langdell’s own fault that he did not file a change of attorney prior to filing his motion. So this ground probably fails.
(b) that service to corp@edgegames.com doesn’t count because “as petitioners know well” tim only uses tim@edgegames.com . That fails too, as on the very motion that EA and future sought to dismiss Langdell gave his contact email as corp@edgegames.com.
(c) that EA and Futures’ inclusion of their motion in an attachment to a motion before the Board (which Langdell read and responded to) was “not valid service or notice”. Valid service it certainly isn’t. Notice it most certainly is.
I do need to go into para 9 a bit, where Langdell claims that in EA and Future’s filing before the Board that included the Motion to Dismiss there was “no evidence of an actual motion being filed”. I think this is my fault, as I called Langdell out for the same move back in post #486 and he is trying to slam the same argument back on EA/Future. What I should have been clearer about at the time is that the issue is not so much whether there is any evidence that a motion has been filed (as clearly, evidence given to court in a motion under penalty of perjury etc etc is definitely evidence of some sort) but rather whether the evidence given is credible (in Langdell’s case I considered his evidence incredible because (a) it is Langdell and (b) even for him it was a dumbshit move – neither of these apply to EA/Future).
Para 10: Here Langdell makes the totally incredible claim that since he is not an attorney he had no way of checking whether a motion had been filed or not. Bollocks. I’m not an attorney either, and I can check – and I do. And I posted it here and I bet he read it too.
Para 11: Langdell notes that there is no time limit to filing a Rule 60 motion for relief from a void judgment. So far so good. He then claims by implication – even he is not barefaced enough to claim so expressly, that he should have an unlimited time to suspend the board proceedings. Extraordinary.
The fact is that the original court order is binding until such time (if any) as it is overturned.
Langdell claims also that “Edge’s Counsel is thus discussing this issue with the District Court”. Really? If so, then why has Edge not filed a change of attorney, eh? I don’t believe it.
At this point Langdell seems to have forgotten about paragraph numbering and does headings instead.
He claims yet again that the District Court’s (original) order is void on its face (it isn’t). He regularly refers to “the Supreme Court” without giving case references, even irrelevant ones. He demands that EA and Future should seek a further court order (at their own expense presumably) to confirm the validity of the Order that has already been made. And he claims yet again that the Board proceedings should be settled by retaining the trademarks largely in Edge’s favour.
None of this crap will fly anywhere except to the nearest wastebasket.
Happy Anniversary to those of you who have stayed with the story from the beginning! If I had started the sodding book back then I’d have nearly finished it by now.
Let’s see what happens next. So far as I can tell it is entirely in the hands of the Board starting in about 24 hours time.
It is also 19 days since Langdell put his last motion in. Out of the 20 days allowed to respond.
And nothing has happened since. Mind you, some of the things that haven’t happened are quite interesting …
1) EA and Future have not responded to Langdell’s filing
There are several possible reasons for this:
(a) Langdell didn’t tell them about it (entirely possible and true to form)
(b) EA and Future are not paying attention (I think this unlikely)
(c) deliberate decision not to respond
I suspect they have deliberately not responded, so as not to allow Langdell any more time to, for example, respond to their response or bring up some other motion. As it stands it is open to the court to judge Langdell’s motion on its merits or, as may be the case, lack of merits.
2) Langdell has filed nothing in the District Court
It isn’t a huge surprise that Langdell has not filed an amended motion to have the District Court’s judgment declared void. As I’ve mentioned before it would be an uphill struggle to find an attorney willing to make this filing faced, as they would be, with professional sanctions – even if Langdell had truth and justice on his side. As it is, the climb is not so much uphill as vertical and sheer and without benefit of handholds.
What is surprising is that Langdell has not even filed a change of attorney with the District Court. That’s the first thing any attorney would do, as it helps get his bills paid. So probably Langdell doesn’t have an attorney at all, whatever he said in his last filing with the Board.
3) Nobody has petitioned the Commissioner of Trademarks
Which probably means that EA and Future are content to leave things to the Board to sort out.
In this context, it is probably safe to nitpick through Langdell’s latest motion point by point. Langdell can’t and EA/Future won’t respond on the basis of anything I say. Plus, I do want to clarify one of Langdell’s points that I think may be my fault!
Para 1 is boring, factual and introductory.
Para 2 claims that the District Court’s order striking Langdell’s motion (to declare the original court order void) is invalid as Edge Games was not served with the motion and had no notice of it. In the course of this Langdell accuses EA and Future of “deceit and abuse of process”.
More of this later.
Para 3. claims that since Langdell’s motion was dismissed on a technicality (that of Langdell not being an attorney) it is not a final decision. In the course of this Langdell accuses EA and Future of “deliberately misrepresentation of the facts [sic]”.
He misses the point that although the Court’s dismissal of the motion to strike may not be final, in its absence the original court order is final.
Paras 4-10 bang on a lot about whether Edge Games had proper service and/or notice of the motion to strike, on three grounds:
(a) that e-filing through the court to Langdell’s attorneys of record (the Lanier Law Firm) doesn’t count, as “petitioners are very aware that the Lanier Law Firm ceased to represent [Langdell] in October 2010”. Now, I don’t know what it is like in the USA, but over here if you serve somebody’s lawyer of record that counts as proper service – indeed to do otherwise might be improper. It’s Langdell’s own fault that he did not file a change of attorney prior to filing his motion. So this ground probably fails.
(b) that service to corp@edgegames.com doesn’t count because “as petitioners know well” tim only uses tim@edgegames.com . That fails too, as on the very motion that EA and future sought to dismiss Langdell gave his contact email as corp@edgegames.com.
(c) that EA and Futures’ inclusion of their motion in an attachment to a motion before the Board (which Langdell read and responded to) was “not valid service or notice”. Valid service it certainly isn’t. Notice it most certainly is.
I do need to go into para 9 a bit, where Langdell claims that in EA and Future’s filing before the Board that included the Motion to Dismiss there was “no evidence of an actual motion being filed”. I think this is my fault, as I called Langdell out for the same move back in post #486 and he is trying to slam the same argument back on EA/Future. What I should have been clearer about at the time is that the issue is not so much whether there is any evidence that a motion has been filed (as clearly, evidence given to court in a motion under penalty of perjury etc etc is definitely evidence of some sort) but rather whether the evidence given is credible (in Langdell’s case I considered his evidence incredible because (a) it is Langdell and (b) even for him it was a dumbshit move – neither of these apply to EA/Future).
Para 10: Here Langdell makes the totally incredible claim that since he is not an attorney he had no way of checking whether a motion had been filed or not. Bollocks. I’m not an attorney either, and I can check – and I do. And I posted it here and I bet he read it too.
Para 11: Langdell notes that there is no time limit to filing a Rule 60 motion for relief from a void judgment. So far so good. He then claims by implication – even he is not barefaced enough to claim so expressly, that he should have an unlimited time to suspend the board proceedings. Extraordinary.
The fact is that the original court order is binding until such time (if any) as it is overturned.
Langdell claims also that “Edge’s Counsel is thus discussing this issue with the District Court”. Really? If so, then why has Edge not filed a change of attorney, eh? I don’t believe it.
At this point Langdell seems to have forgotten about paragraph numbering and does headings instead.
He claims yet again that the District Court’s (original) order is void on its face (it isn’t). He regularly refers to “the Supreme Court” without giving case references, even irrelevant ones. He demands that EA and Future should seek a further court order (at their own expense presumably) to confirm the validity of the Order that has already been made. And he claims yet again that the Board proceedings should be settled by retaining the trademarks largely in Edge’s favour.
None of this crap will fly anywhere except to the nearest wastebasket.
Happy Anniversary to those of you who have stayed with the story from the beginning! If I had started the sodding book back then I’d have nearly finished it by now.
Let’s see what happens next. So far as I can tell it is entirely in the hands of the Board starting in about 24 hours time.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
What do they teach you in that? I'm curious, because when I was 'being taught' litigation I did way too much process and not enough tactics - had to learn tactics the hard way by losing to people better than me!
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
If he files before the Board again it will be out of order, either by time or as an improper something-or-other.
The only filing he could make now, at this short notice, that would make a difference is to file a change of attorney in the District Court. And to be quite honest, even though it is now the best move for Langdell, I am hoping to provoke it - it partly for the fun of naming and shaming said attorney who should have done their research better,
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Oh, I once taught someone who is now an Aussie lawyer (contract rather than litigation). Don't let the process stuff blind you as to what's tactically sensible. Trouble is, a lot of law teachers don't get enough sharp end experience.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Depends a lot what sort of firms you can get into, and what sort of work you like. Paralegalling won't necessarily help a bunch in making your mind up as you might hate one place but love another.
What do you get your kicks out of? If you have a love of the unexpected, like meeting new and interesting people, like to think on your feet and hate paperwork then criminal law is the place to be. If you like mid-term slog to success, go land or commercial. If you like greasy-pole politics stuff do corporate or constitutional. If you like a lot of variety and can cope with the day-to-day pressure go in-house (Don't even think about teaching law until you've done some for real!)
But hell, if you've got the opportunity to go for practice go the hell for it to start with, you can always give it up if you don't like it.
Magna_Mixalis
Member
@phisheep: Once again, kudos for the updates and explanations. Also, you seem to be in rare form today. I take it the (possible) light at the end of the tunnel has made you a little giddy?
Hopefully the light isn't from an oncoming train....
Hopefully the light isn't from an oncoming train....
eudaemonic
Member
Just chiming in that I like these updates too. Thanks!
arglebargle
Member
great update, thanks for keeping us posted. interesting that you think he may be acting based on your posts. maybe you should throw in the occasional misleading interpretation to get him to dig himself in even deeper. not that he needs it.
you arent an attorney?
you arent an attorney?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I'm not even in North America, we don't have attorneys over here.
EDIT: That means the only access to US court papers I have is the same access as any random dude anywhere in the world (like for example Langdell) could get. So claiming he can't see what's happening because he isn't an attorney just don't work.
There's some good solid evidence that he did so at least once. Probably twice. As to deliberately misleading interpretations, I've thought about that but no - not going to do it. If I'm giving advice than it is going to be good advice (even if the recipient doesn't like it, and even if the recipient is Langdell), and goodness knows I have advised Langdell enough throughout this thread, and I don't think any of the advice has been legally, strategically or tactically wrong for him at the time. Not that he has followed any of it of course.
Of course, I'm not obliged to comment on everything that I find or to do so immediately - that's one reason I only posted this update today and haven't posted a couple of other things at all.
arglebargle
Member
for some reason i knew you werent in north america, but i assumed you were the equivalent of an attorney in whatever country you are in. i guess that could still be true and your point about langdell could remain intact.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
The "equivalent of an attorney" somewhere else doesn't get any special access to US court dockets, not anything more than Langdell could get himself. The only point I'm making there is that it's a crap argument to say that because he isn't an attorney he can't check up on things that are a matter of public record and right up there on the internet for anyone to grab hold of.
Sure, US law firms probably have decent contracts with whoever provides this stuff so they can download stuff for "free" - but it costs nothing at all to find out in a case who has filed something and roughly what it is. It only starts to cost if you have some interest in what they actually wrote, but hey, if you're involved in the case and your opponent files a motion you're not going to lose sleep over the 99 cents it costs to get a hold of it are you?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Sorry to bung in yet another post here, but it seems the USPTO are updating some of their systems at the moment, and there's a possibility that some links in the thread (and maybe previous ones) will go wrong.
I'll come back in a few days and assess the damage. Might even fix it if it is not too onerous!
I'll come back in a few days and assess the damage. Might even fix it if it is not too onerous!
arglebargle
Member
i understood your point from the beginning, that landells argument was bullshit. i was just surprised to hear you say you werent an attorney and to be honest i didnt know other countries didnt use the terms attorney and lawyer synonymously as we do here in the US. your commentary and legal insights are so well researched and explained i would have been surprised if you didnt have legal training. now i understand you do, you just dont use the term attorney because of your jurisdiction.
incidentally, my fiance is an intellectual property lawyer; i should get her to take a look at this thread and see what she thinks.
someguyinahat
Member
Is there any legal precedent to a judge ripping up a motion in court like Cersei Lannister?
Maybe they just buried Langdell under a mountain of paperwork and he never came out of it?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Nothing's happened since 23rd August (with Langdell's last filing with the board). Nothing new filed at TTAB or in the District Court (surprise surprise).
Didn't want to bump the thread with continuous non-updates in the meantime as it just frustrates people.
So far in this case it's taken the Board between three and four months to reach a decision each time it has had to - so we might just maybe see something before Christmas!
Didn't want to bump the thread with continuous non-updates in the meantime as it just frustrates people.
So far in this case it's taken the Board between three and four months to reach a decision each time it has had to - so we might just maybe see something before Christmas!
SiegfriedFM
Member
All I want for Christmas... is Langdell on the run.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Nothing's happened in TTAB or District Court, but Kendle at ChaosEdge put me on to this thing.
It seems Langdell hasn't been paying his legal bills, and did the usual dog-ate-my-homework/grandmothers-funeral stuff and appealed all the way to the California Court of Appeal.
He lost of course. Getting to be kind of a habit these days.
After this, chances of Langdell getting a proper lawyer on board without cash up front are pretty well zero. "Going to be filing imminently" my foot!
It seems Langdell hasn't been paying his legal bills, and did the usual dog-ate-my-homework/grandmothers-funeral stuff and appealed all the way to the California Court of Appeal.
He lost of course. Getting to be kind of a habit these days.
After this, chances of Langdell getting a proper lawyer on board without cash up front are pretty well zero. "Going to be filing imminently" my foot!
Sir_Crocodile
Member
I guess he spent all that trademark money
Thanks for keeping us updated phisheep! Always great to see this thread pop back up and see how deep that hole he's digging is getting. Amazing that EA have the patience to see this through for so long, he's obviously counted on his delaying tactics stopping anyone from taking it all the way and he's gradually running out of tricks/other people's ability to put up with his bullshit.
Reading that case, you can practically feel the contempt for Langdell. It's amazing how clearly it puts forward that he's full of crap.
I H8 Memes
Member
He should have hired a lawyer whos last name was Edge, then sued him for trademark infringement and got his lawyering for free.
D
Deleted member 74300
Unconfirmed Member
Version 3.0
Member
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
IrishNinja
Member
thread's nearly 600 posts, phisheep updates everytime something relevant goes down...why do this?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Four days ago, on 25th January, one of Tim's trademarks got cancelled. That's registration number 3105816 EDGE for printed matter (magazines, bumper stickers, writing implements and so on and suchlike).
Strange thing is, it didn't get cancelled for fraud or abandonment. It didn't get cancelled either because of the District Court order.
It got cancelled routinely, and outside the court process altogether, because Tim failed to submit an acceptable Section 8 declaration of continued use.
How very strange!
Actually, it might not be all that strange. Rather, a sign that someone at the USPTO is being very careful to close this case down airtight. Because it is this registration that, because it was part-owned by Future Publishing, was the cause of all the recent kerfuffle - that led to the TTAB rejecting part of the District Court order and that led to Future Publishing being joined as a defendant (see post #216).
Getting rid of it this way takes away Langdell's one ridiculously slim chance of a finding in his favour (that I've been tangentially alluding to for most of this thread); avoids the embarrassment of the TTAB having to overturn one of its own decisions in the case; and suggests to me that at long last we are getting close to a conclusion.
I'll get around to updating the OP shortly. EDIT: Done.
Strange thing is, it didn't get cancelled for fraud or abandonment. It didn't get cancelled either because of the District Court order.
It got cancelled routinely, and outside the court process altogether, because Tim failed to submit an acceptable Section 8 declaration of continued use.
How very strange!
Actually, it might not be all that strange. Rather, a sign that someone at the USPTO is being very careful to close this case down airtight. Because it is this registration that, because it was part-owned by Future Publishing, was the cause of all the recent kerfuffle - that led to the TTAB rejecting part of the District Court order and that led to Future Publishing being joined as a defendant (see post #216).
Getting rid of it this way takes away Langdell's one ridiculously slim chance of a finding in his favour (that I've been tangentially alluding to for most of this thread); avoids the embarrassment of the TTAB having to overturn one of its own decisions in the case; and suggests to me that at long last we are getting close to a conclusion.
I'll get around to updating the OP shortly. EDIT: Done.
Good news! Thanks for keeping us updated phisheep. It's been really interesting following all this, mainly because of how batshit insane Langdell has been and how well you've been covering it all. Will be interesting to see if this starts the ball rolling again, and whether that ball is in fact a steamroller headed right for Langdell.
EdwardTivrusky
Member
Thanks for your continued work on this, phisheep!
Much appreciated.
Much appreciated.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Thanks Edward. It's one of those unrewarded passion things I guess - more than 1,000 views since I last posted and not a lot in the way of feedback - so I'm really grateful for your comment.
Not that it's really any more something that people can really make sensible comments on, but it is nice to know that it's worth keeping going.
When, and if, it is all over I expect to have a little party in this thread for everyone who has been keeping up with the story!
Not that it's really any more something that people can really make sensible comments on, but it is nice to know that it's worth keeping going.
When, and if, it is all over I expect to have a little party in this thread for everyone who has been keeping up with the story!
SiegfriedFM
Member
Oh, I'm still watching 
minasodaboy
Member
This whole saga has been fascinating. Thanks for keeping this up!
Azure Dream
Member
I concur, I always enjoy seeing this thread bumped with the latest of your assessments.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
- Status