I've got a lawyer themed game I'd like you to hear about. Got a pretty good idea for the name as well.Cheesemeister said:This whole legal drama had me on the edge of my seat!
Rez said:he had it coming, nobody fucks with Soul Edge
phisheep said:I just re-read the final judgment and order in case I missed something.
Guess what - I did miss something.
The final judgment is CONDITIONAL ON the parties complying with the order. And the only part of the order binding on the parties is that on Langdell to notify his own fraud to his own licensees.
In short, if Langdell fails to notify his licensees that he is a fraud (that's what it amounts to) by 15th October then the judgment in the settlement will fail and he will face an immediate fraud deposition before the court.
That judge is damn good.
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:So, anyone have the address for EA's legal department?
I want to send them a nice bottle of wine or some flowers or something. Who's with me?
phisheep said:I just re-read the final judgment and order in case I missed something.
Guess what - I did miss something.
The final judgment is CONDITIONAL ON the parties complying with the order. And the only part of the order binding on the parties is that on Langdell to notify his own fraud to his own licensees.
In short, if Langdell fails to notify his licensees that he is a fraud (that's what it amounts to) by 15th October then the judgment in the settlement will fail and he will face an immediate fraud deposition before the court.
That judge is damn good.
CamHostage said: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.)
phisheep 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?
ZealousD 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.
I was thinking about that. My guess is that Lucas actually uses the term.ZealousD 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.
Erigu said:But wasn't the term "droid" coined by Star Wars in the first place? Or am I mistaken / does it not matter?
I just want to echo the chorus of thanks for bringing some measure of clarity to an otherwise convoluted and impenetrable subject.phisheep 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.
Dear lawyer
Thank you for your letter of dd/mm/yy
You say you want an amicable solution. Here is what works for me.
You go away and stop hassling me, and I won't tell the press what a jerk you and your client are being.
Please signify your acceptance of these terms in writing within seven days, or I will tell them anyway.
If for some reason this does not satisfy you, perhaps you'd explain your precise legal position in enough detail and simple enough language that I can understand it instead of sending vaguely theatening letters.
Yours sincerely etc
phisheep said: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.
phisheep said: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.
Erigu said:But wasn't the term "droid" coined by Star Wars in the first place? Or am I mistaken / does it not matter?
This is fucking amazing! This part in particular got me cracked up:Mejilan 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
Further, if any of these patents or trademarks has been licensed to any entity, please provide me with copies of the licensing agreements. I assume that Monster Cable International, Ltd., in Bermuda, listed on these patents, is an IP holding company and that Monster Cable's principal US entity pays licensing fees to the Bermuda corporation in order to shift income out of the United States and thereby avoid paying United States federal income tax on those portions of its income; my request for these licensing agreements is specifically intended to include any licensing agreements, including those with closely related or sham entities, within or without the Monster Cable "family," and without regard to whether those licensing agreements are sham transactions for tax shelter purposes only or whether they are bona fide arm's-length transactions.
My god that is beautiful.Mejilan 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
"Android", yeah. But "droid"?Woo-Fu said:The term "android" first saw use in the 18th century.
Opus Angelorum said:@ 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?
phisheep said:... then try this approach.
M3d10n said:This is fucking amazing! This part in particular got me cracked up:
Dead Man said:My god that is beautiful.
border said:I don't entirely understand the ruling.
The court sees that something likely criminal has happened here, but will overlook the criminal behavior if Langdell agrees to a settlement in a civil suit? Does that happen often? Why not hash out the criminal and civil stuff separately?
Zenith said:Can you believe the International Game Developers Association allowed the guy to sit on their board?
phisheep said: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.