-
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 vs Edge trademark case - GAME OVER! - read post #169
- Thread starter JohnnyPanda
- Start date
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
Oh man, that second order has me wet. Wonderful stuff!
Hot Coldman
Banned
Rez said:
Yeah, that's Scamco's job!
Fantastic news, glad to see the back of this nonsense. phisheep is a god among GAFfers.
phisheep said:
holy shit, that is so damn awesome and funny at the same time... :lol
finally, the days of Langdell's reign are over!
edit: I wanna thank you for every update on this matter, phisheep. As a law student myself (though not in a common-law country, so many of the terms used are kind of strange to me), this has been quite a journey, and you've been an awesome guide!
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Fuck Yeah! Was going to cancel my MOH preorder but knowing EA/Dice's involvement in this, I'm going to go buy two copies!
Now give me Mirror's Edge 2!!
Now give me Mirror's Edge 2!!
Seconding this request for a mailing address, at the very least I'd like to send them a letter. So happy to see a patent troll put in his placeGazunta said:
And phisheep, I know it's been said countless times, but seriously thank you for going through all this time and effort to keep us updated. Even more impressed to learn that you don't live in the US
hosannainexcelsis
Member
Thanks for the play-by-play analysis, phisheep! Langdell finally got what he deserved. Hopefully no one will use a common English word as an excuse to interfere with great games ever again.
MrTroubleMaker
Member
nice! 
CamHostage
Member
Rightful victory. And thank you, phisheep, for keeping us up with these developments.
Actually, I have a dumb question for you if you don't mind... is there any chance you could explain the difference between what Langdell had the rights (or rather claimed to) to and what the trademark office generally maintains as a fair claim?
I hate what Langdell tried to do in weaseling in on every product with the word "Edge" in the title, and I really don't believe it makes sense that a word as common as this could be owned. But at the same time, he did have a claim to "Edge Games" through Softek, which did own the rights to the old UK business that did use "EDGE" as its trademarked brand name. (...Or so he claims, so for the sake of the discussion let's go with it as such.)
So I'm not sure I understand where the legal line is? (Again, assuming he actually had a rightful claim to "EDGE" in the first place.) "Edge" is a very common word, but I know that Apple Computers had to work out a special contract with Apple Records to not enter the music business when it named itself years ago, and "Apple" is right out of the dictionary. Then what protects Microsoft from there being a game called "HALO Chief" about a military skydiving commander? What stops a shovelware company from branding a line of products "Entertaining & Active (E.A.) Sports"? How much control over the word "Nike" does Nike have when it named itself after an ancient Greek goddess? What are the common law rights one actually could have if Langdell did rightfully have some form of "EDGE" trademarked as he claimed? Basically, is it at all possible to own a single common word across a specific market of products?
(You don't have to answer all my stupid questions, I'm just curious if you could explain where the line is.)
Actually, I have a dumb question for you if you don't mind... is there any chance you could explain the difference between what Langdell had the rights (or rather claimed to) to and what the trademark office generally maintains as a fair claim?
I hate what Langdell tried to do in weaseling in on every product with the word "Edge" in the title, and I really don't believe it makes sense that a word as common as this could be owned. But at the same time, he did have a claim to "Edge Games" through Softek, which did own the rights to the old UK business that did use "EDGE" as its trademarked brand name. (...Or so he claims, so for the sake of the discussion let's go with it as such.)
So I'm not sure I understand where the legal line is? (Again, assuming he actually had a rightful claim to "EDGE" in the first place.) "Edge" is a very common word, but I know that Apple Computers had to work out a special contract with Apple Records to not enter the music business when it named itself years ago, and "Apple" is right out of the dictionary. Then what protects Microsoft from there being a game called "HALO Chief" about a military skydiving commander? What stops a shovelware company from branding a line of products "Entertaining & Active (E.A.) Sports"? How much control over the word "Nike" does Nike have when it named itself after an ancient Greek goddess? What are the common law rights one actually could have if Langdell did rightfully have some form of "EDGE" trademarked as he claimed? Basically, is it at all possible to own a single common word across a specific market of products?
(You don't have to answer all my stupid questions, I'm just curious if you could explain where the line is.)
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
CamHostage said:
I'll try.
To start with, you need to understand that there's no bar to using a common word as a trademark. People do it all the time (like Apple (computers etc), Orange (telecomms), Dragon (software) and so on). There's nothing unusual about it at all.
The first criterion is that you must be using the mark commercially (or at least be genuinely intending to in the near future). Usually it'll be on your products/packaging/advertising or on a sign outside your door or something. Simply holding on to a trademark for bullying other people with isn't enough. It isn't necessary for you to do all the commercial stuff yourself, you can come to licensing agreements with other people to do the actual work so long as you exert some control over the product/service/businesses that you licence. That's the way franchise operations work.
Langdell falls foul of that because he hasn't used the marks genuinely in business in any way for years if at all. Your suggestion of 'HALO Chief' would pass this criterion so long as the game actually existed and was being sold.
The second criterion is that the mark must not be purely descriptive of the product or its origin. For example you would not be able to trademark the word 'Orange' for orange paint, or the phrase 'Bald Space Marine FPS' for a game, or Cheddar for cheese or Parma for ham. Another side to that is that you can't infringe somebody else's trademark by using a purely descriptive term. No matter how widely drawn Langdell's trademarks were, you couldn't breach them by selling 'Cutting Edge Knives'. That's the bit that protects people in using ordinary words in their ordinary way and why Steve Jobs doesn't sue every greengrocer in the world for selling apples.
The third criterion is that the mark must be distinctive of your product/service or its origin. Except for very well-known brands, this is normally constrained by the type of product/service it is, and perhaps by geography. A trademark has to be registered for a class or classes of goods or services (and it gets more expensive the more that you register for) AND you have to be using all of the classes that you register for in commerce. "Halo" is registered (or has live applications for) in the USA for videogames, organic food bars, remote backup solutions, condoms, pesticides, reflective clothing and so on and so on, and none of these infringe on each other. The rationale behind this is to avoid customer confusion - and nobody is going to be confused into thinking that Microsoft/Bungie makes condoms.
But a video game called "HALO Chief" would infringe Microsofts trademarks, which cover videogames, toys, games and books among other things.
That make sense?
phisheep said:
So essentially, he crossed the line with the "Edge" trademark because he did absolute jack shit with it except to bully other gaming companies into giving him money. He wasn't making any meaningful games at all. That's part of the reason he tried to go about selling that Racers game, because he had to prove he hadn't abandoned the mark.
On an unrelated topic, Verizon's "Droid" line of Android phones had to obtain a license from Lucasfilm in order to use the name. Considering that the mobile phone market doesn't exactly fall under the umbrella of things that Lucasfilm sells, is that a valid use of the trademark, or is Lucasfilm just being a bully here? Seems like very few people would confuse an Android phone with a piece of star wars merchandise.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
ZealousD said:
Exactly. You got it.
I've had only a very brief look at this. Lucasfilms has several trademarks for DROID in various categories, but it does NOT have one covering mobile phones.
However, it did apply for one in October 2009, and it appears that it is this application that is used to leverage a deal. Not that I believe for a minute that Lucasfilm is going into the mobile phone business.
The situation is a bit less clear, because there is a third party involved (someone called Android Data).
Now, for all that I'm not a huge fan of trademark law as it stands (or at least some of the use that is made of it), the players in the Droid scenario are big boys, and if they want to waste their time and money on these stupid games, they're free to do so. It is when corporate bullies take on the small fry that I get cross.
That said, this looks like a pretty clear case of trolling to me, or at least of playing the system for advantage.
Mind you, Lucasfilm essentially invented trademark merchandising way back with Star Wars - so I can't say that I am surprised.
If it had been me I would have told them to get stuffed. In proper legal terminology of course.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Erigu said:
I doubt if it originated with Star Wars, but that is certainly what popularised it. It doesn't matter anyway, because what's important is the commercial use of the term, and what commercial categories it is used in.
For toys, games, books, films - sure. For information and entertainment related to science fiction, films and so on - again, that's stuff that Lucasfilms either did or was at least thinking about doing.
Mobile phones? No way.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Meanwhile, and for fun, if any of you guys get one of those nasty letters about trademark infringement from lawyers from some big corporate seeking an 'amicable solution' (which usually means either you stop using some phrase you have been using in your business, or worse, paying them money or accepting a licence) ...
... like this one ...
... then try this approach.
Of course this only works if they have a reputation to defend, unlike Langdell.
... like this one ...
... then try this approach.
Of course this only works if they have a reputation to defend, unlike Langdell.
Haven't really kept up much with that Langdell scumbag, but I did scan most of this thread to catch up. Thanks much to phisheep for keeping us all apprised.
Not a big fan of EA, and I never like to see big business squash the little guys.
But what I do know of Langdell (mostly thanks to GAF, admittedly), indicates that he's a useless piece of shit prone to irresponsible and frivolous litigation to make his living. Definitely happy to see his little empire of bullshittery get torn down around him, and him effectively being turned into the tool of his own future destruction.
Nothing quite like being legally confirmed as scum, and then being legally forced to admit to that to all of those poor bastards you've been deceiving for profit. EA might not have bothered to completely finish him off, but they certainly left him mired, shipwrecked, and bleeding. The scent is in the water, and it should only be a matter of time before Langdell's former prey turn and devour him, in turn.
Or we can hope.
Not a big fan of EA, and I never like to see big business squash the little guys.
But what I do know of Langdell (mostly thanks to GAF, admittedly), indicates that he's a useless piece of shit prone to irresponsible and frivolous litigation to make his living. Definitely happy to see his little empire of bullshittery get torn down around him, and him effectively being turned into the tool of his own future destruction.
Nothing quite like being legally confirmed as scum, and then being legally forced to admit to that to all of those poor bastards you've been deceiving for profit. EA might not have bothered to completely finish him off, but they certainly left him mired, shipwrecked, and bleeding. The scent is in the water, and it should only be a matter of time before Langdell's former prey turn and devour him, in turn.
Or we can hope.
phisheep said:
Perhaps not EXACTLY what you're describing, but this one provides me with an unending source of amusement every time I re-read it.
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back
SpacePirate Ridley
Member
Great day for videogame community and for the wprld.
Thanks phisheep for all the info you have given all this months!
Thanks phisheep for all the info you have given all this months!
Opus Angelorum
Member
@ phisheep
Do those parties that have been affected by this (I remember an iPhone game being pulled) have any cause to sue for loss of earnings or any sort of comeback?
Do those parties that have been affected by this (I remember an iPhone game being pulled) have any cause to sue for loss of earnings or any sort of comeback?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Opus Angelorum said:
The short answer is yes.
The long answer is that it depends a bit on what actual harm they suffered. I've been spending a bit of time running through them (and Langdell's other trademarks) to try and work out who might have an action for what, and so far it varies rather a lot.
There's one or two could claim back a trademark that they assigned to Langdell under (his) false pretences, there might have been money involved as well and there would at least be costs they can claim back.
Where there was actual transfer of money involved they'll likely be able to claim it back with interest and costs.
There are possible claims of passing off, and maybe even blackmail.
I guess that Mobigames at least would be able to make a convincing claim for loss of earnings, there would seem to be enough evidence around to support it.
It'll probably take me another few days to pull enough of this together to make a sensible post about it, but I do want to try to predict (and maybe influence, hah!) what happens next.
Hot Coldman
Banned
phisheep said:
Ha, those Pokémon fan-sites that got letters from Nintendo could have used this. That is, if they hadn't basically owned up to using illegal ROMs.
I really hope Mobigames can make some money back off of this, I can't think of anyone who Langdell screwed as badly as them.
M3d10n said:
Dead Man said:
The word 'epic' is commonly used and rarely justified.
But the way a former-professional-lawyer-now-small-time-cable-hobbyist-slash-business-man stood up to and effectively fended off those Monster douchebags can only be considered EPIC. Good stuff.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
border said:
That's a nice idea, that occurs to pretty well everybody at some stage or other. The main problems are:
1) the standard of proof is different (balance of probabilities in civil cases, beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases) so proof, even it is of something that amounts to a crime, in a civil case doesn't necessarily equate to the level of proof needed for criminal conviction. This distinction would confuse the hell out of juries.
It might work the other way round (giving civil remedies in criminal cases), and there are some moves towards this at least in the UK. Also, at least in the UK, you can use a criminal conviction as evidence in a civil court. But it wouldn't work the other way round.
2) , and most importantly, in a civil case the costs are borne by the parties themselves. They are paying, and it is them that decide when to stop paying. In this case the parties agreed to settle, and there's nothing the judge can do about that. I imagine he could reject the settlement, but he can't force the parties to continue with a case they don't want to pursue.
I expect that all this will be referred to the criminal justice guys at some stage. But a civil judge just can't proceed on that basis.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Awesome.
This is better then Arkell v Pressdram
This is better then Arkell v Pressdram
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Zenith said:
Actually I can. They didn't know then what we know now, and seems like he might be just the ambitious, persuasive and pushy sort to make it.
They've been deadly quiet about it recently though. If there's nothing in the next few weeks I might try to prod them a bit.
phisheep said:
Can and should!
I understand if those guys want to just forget about it, and not deal with any more legal time and energy, but...
Their game was literally pulled from markets because of this guy. What would the most effective strategy be, to compare sales data vs. time that the game wasn't available commercially?
I hope they do if they have a case.
Anyways, have you guys heard of "Edge," currently available for purchase on the itunes store? ;P