-
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.
- Status
Zomba13
Member
Urgh I really hate this guy. Like if I saw him in the street I'd run up to him and hit him in face. Just urrrgh. It's like when in school and a kid comes up with something like catchphrase he'd seen on TV and starts using it and saying he made it up and telling on the kids that say he didn't or also use it. He's just a big dick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFKylgGk73I
^^ pretty much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFKylgGk73I
^^ pretty much.
bernardobri
Steve, the dog with no powers that we let hang out with us all for some reason
Neuromancer
Member
:lol :lol :lolbernardobri said:
(The son of a bitch probably thought it was funny too though)
New iPhone game, "Shadow Edge"
http://forums.toucharcade.com/showthread.php?threadid=63054
I wonder how long until Langdell starts sniffing around their crotch for crumbs...
http://forums.toucharcade.com/showthread.php?threadid=63054
I wonder how long until Langdell starts sniffing around their crotch for crumbs...
Azure Dream
Member
I know I've said this before, but it just blows my mind.
How can he be so damn conceited as to think he owns a commonly-used English word? Why has he been allowed to continue with baseless, immoral legal threats for as long as he has? I know the obvious answers, but it's just astounding to me all the same.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edge said:
How can he be so damn conceited as to think he owns a commonly-used English word? Why has he been allowed to continue with baseless, immoral legal threats for as long as he has? I know the obvious answers, but it's just astounding to me all the same.
hosannainexcelsis
Member
Chrange said:
Now Langdell is just trolling himself.
Cromulent_Word
Member
Ruh-Roh shaggy... more Langdell? (via @mossmouth)
http://www.nisamerica.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1778
edit: whoops i am 1 page late... doh...
http://www.nisamerica.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1778
edit: whoops i am 1 page late... doh...
IrishNinja
Member
Ugh.
EA: take him down, and between this and the new IPs, all sins forgiven, seriously.
EA: take him down, and between this and the new IPs, all sins forgiven, seriously.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
... in which Langdell seems to have screwed himself mightily ...
Haven't checked this for a while, assuming that it was all vanishing into Federal court. But there has been a bit of an interesting development.
You see, on 22nd June 2010, EA were granted trademarks for MIRROR'S EDGE.
And it is pretty unlikely that you can be successfully sued for using your own registered trademark.
Let's step back a bit.
Things are more-or-less where they were on the opposition and cancellation cases that we have been discussing. EA agrees the cancellation case is to go to federal court, but wants the outstanding motions to be ruled on first - in particular the business of consolidating the petitions and refusing Langdell's motion(s) to dismiss.
However, with all of this stuff going on it rather looks as though Langdell forgot to oppose EA's application for the trademark which has now been granted.
There's a series of five motions/letters/faxes from Langdell seeking to extend the time he has to oppose EA's application(s).
All of them have been denied.
Well, sort of denied. His request to extend the time to oppose for 90 days 'with cause' was granted, but that only took him up to 9th June - by which time he still hadn't made an opposition. But his request to extend for a further 60 days under 'exceptional circumstances' was denied - the exceptional circumstances were not exceptional enough consisting as they were claimed to, of Langdell being away from the office on business without access to the internet (yeah sure - for 90+60 days, during which time he has filed numerous motions on the other proceedings?) and being without access to a post office to obtain proof of posting what he claims to have posted (what, for half a year?).
So he has run out of time to object.
The fact that EA now have the MIRROR'S EDGE mark registered is likely to do serious damage to Langdell's chances of success in the federal court.
Wonder if his lawyers knew that in advance?
As usual this is based on a quick reading of the documents. There might be more to it (though in this case I doubt it). I'll check in more detail in the next day or two.
Haven't checked this for a while, assuming that it was all vanishing into Federal court. But there has been a bit of an interesting development.
You see, on 22nd June 2010, EA were granted trademarks for MIRROR'S EDGE.
And it is pretty unlikely that you can be successfully sued for using your own registered trademark.
Let's step back a bit.
Things are more-or-less where they were on the opposition and cancellation cases that we have been discussing. EA agrees the cancellation case is to go to federal court, but wants the outstanding motions to be ruled on first - in particular the business of consolidating the petitions and refusing Langdell's motion(s) to dismiss.
However, with all of this stuff going on it rather looks as though Langdell forgot to oppose EA's application for the trademark which has now been granted.
There's a series of five motions/letters/faxes from Langdell seeking to extend the time he has to oppose EA's application(s).
All of them have been denied.
Well, sort of denied. His request to extend the time to oppose for 90 days 'with cause' was granted, but that only took him up to 9th June - by which time he still hadn't made an opposition. But his request to extend for a further 60 days under 'exceptional circumstances' was denied - the exceptional circumstances were not exceptional enough consisting as they were claimed to, of Langdell being away from the office on business without access to the internet (yeah sure - for 90+60 days, during which time he has filed numerous motions on the other proceedings?) and being without access to a post office to obtain proof of posting what he claims to have posted (what, for half a year?).
So he has run out of time to object.
The fact that EA now have the MIRROR'S EDGE mark registered is likely to do serious damage to Langdell's chances of success in the federal court.
Wonder if his lawyers knew that in advance?
As usual this is based on a quick reading of the documents. There might be more to it (though in this case I doubt it). I'll check in more detail in the next day or two.
Jive Turkey
Unconfirmed Member
Thanks phisheep! Always interesting!
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
border said:
Oh, he has lawyers for the actual litigation. He hired Lanier, who then put out a rather bumptious press release , ironically only a week before EA's trademark was granted. They've gone quiet since.
He seems to be acting on his own for the day-to-day harrying of others.
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
:lol
After all this he neglects to file opposition proceedings on their actual TM application.
*Slow clap*
After all this he neglects to file opposition proceedings on their actual TM application.
*Slow clap*
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Of course, since it is Langdell, it isn't quite as easy as all that - probably even he isn't daft enough to just forget this sort of thing.
The gory detail (in Langdell-speak) is here. Readers should beware that it is not necessarily all true.
What seems to have happened is roughly this:
EA applied for trademark in Mirror's Edge in 2007. Langdell lodged a letter of protest against that, and EA withdrew the application.
EA then re-applied (under EA DICE) for three trademarks of Mirror's Edge. Langdell tried to counter this by resuscitating his previous letter of protest and by voicemails/telephone calls to USPTO staff - all typical under-the-counter stuff - expecting that he could force these applications to be stalled. A letter of protest was eventually filed, but not until the same day as the trademarks were published by which time it was of course too late to stop publication (which is what a letter of protest is for). The correct procedure then would have been to file an opposition to the published marks, but Langdell continued to try to get the PTO to withdraw the publication - which I don't think they can do.
Then he applied for extensions - and then he filed an opposition late and on the assumption that the extensions would be granted. they weren't, and his missed the deadline to oppose.
Now that the marks have been granted the correct procedure would be to petition for cancellation in the same way as EA has done to Langdell.
But, that won't work here because of the pending civil litigation that Langdell himself has started and that hangs on the exact same facts. Proceedings would be suspended on the same grounds that Langdell has sought (and apparently succeeded) to do to EA's cancellation petition.
That is what Shakespeare calls being hoist by one's own petard.
The upshot is that Langdell's only clear advantage in the litigation - the pre-existing registered marks - is wiped out because EA have some as well.
Wonderful!
(Note: anyone new to this thread probably needs to scroll back a few pages to work out what the hell is going on)
The gory detail (in Langdell-speak) is here. Readers should beware that it is not necessarily all true.
What seems to have happened is roughly this:
EA applied for trademark in Mirror's Edge in 2007. Langdell lodged a letter of protest against that, and EA withdrew the application.
EA then re-applied (under EA DICE) for three trademarks of Mirror's Edge. Langdell tried to counter this by resuscitating his previous letter of protest and by voicemails/telephone calls to USPTO staff - all typical under-the-counter stuff - expecting that he could force these applications to be stalled. A letter of protest was eventually filed, but not until the same day as the trademarks were published by which time it was of course too late to stop publication (which is what a letter of protest is for). The correct procedure then would have been to file an opposition to the published marks, but Langdell continued to try to get the PTO to withdraw the publication - which I don't think they can do.
Then he applied for extensions - and then he filed an opposition late and on the assumption that the extensions would be granted. they weren't, and his missed the deadline to oppose.
Now that the marks have been granted the correct procedure would be to petition for cancellation in the same way as EA has done to Langdell.
But, that won't work here because of the pending civil litigation that Langdell himself has started and that hangs on the exact same facts. Proceedings would be suspended on the same grounds that Langdell has sought (and apparently succeeded) to do to EA's cancellation petition.
That is what Shakespeare calls being hoist by one's own petard.
The upshot is that Langdell's only clear advantage in the litigation - the pre-existing registered marks - is wiped out because EA have some as well.
Wonderful!
(Note: anyone new to this thread probably needs to scroll back a few pages to work out what the hell is going on)
IrishNinja
Member
phisheep said:
it's like a troll being taxed for his home under the bridge. i love it.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
News just in.
EA has filed a counterclaim in the lawsuit that Langdell bought recently.
Haven't seen the actual document yet, but from the report the contents sound familiar - pretty well what everyone who's been following Chaosedge and this thread would expect, alleged fraud on USPTO and seeking to have Langdell's marks cancelled.
Wonderful timing too, shortly after the last of Langdell's attempts to overturn EA's registration of Mirror's Edge. This is like watching ju-jitsu.
EA has filed a counterclaim in the lawsuit that Langdell bought recently.
Haven't seen the actual document yet, but from the report the contents sound familiar - pretty well what everyone who's been following Chaosedge and this thread would expect, alleged fraud on USPTO and seeking to have Langdell's marks cancelled.
Wonderful timing too, shortly after the last of Langdell's attempts to overturn EA's registration of Mirror's Edge. This is like watching ju-jitsu.
phisheep said:
Yep, Langdell is a petard alright.
Once again, thanks for the update Phisheep. It seems like such a shame that American taxpayer money is being wasted on this sort of foolishness. Hopefully this can all be resolved quickly. Preferably with Langdell being launched out of a cannon into the atmosphere.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
oracrest said:
That, I imagine, will depend very much on (a) what the court finds as fact and (b) what the court grants as a remedy.
If, for example, the most recent renewals of the trademarks are held to be fraudulent then probably there will be simple grounds of action from the renewal date onwards but not from before then. If the original applications are held to be fraudulent then there would be grounds of action all the way back.
The actual remedy (if there's any fraud at all) may only be cancellation of the marks from the date of judgment. That might still give grounds for retrospective litigation (depending on any statutory limitations) but the burden of proof on the claimant would be higher.
In practice of course it seems unlikely there will be all that many civil cases brought since it is unlikely that Langdell would be able to pay. Since the company's principal assets (the trademarks) would have no value and the liabilities would be an increasing number of legal claims I would expect insolvency to follow an adverse judgment very quickly. Remember there will be follow-up cases in Europe as well.
Plus, there are possible criminal proceedings.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Nickiepoo said:
But they weren't all settled by court order. There's plenty of plain contractual ones - and a contract obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation might give a cause of action.
And I'm sure there must be some remedy for even court orders obtained on the back of fraud.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Nickiepoo said:
Certainly they would find it easier to show losses and direct causation of those losses, given the explicit correspondence that is around. I can't remember if the Mobigame stuff hinged on the US or the Europe trademarks, so there might be a bit more litigation to go yet.
Jive Turkey
Unconfirmed Member
I love that idiom.phisheep said:
Cosmo Clock 21
Banned
Mirror's Edge 2: Edge of the Edge's Edge
I don't think Langdell is stopping EA from doing anything with Mirror's Edge.Tempy said:
Phisheep, have you thought about writing a book about all this when it's all said and done? I'd love to have a full retrospective of the whole Tim Langell saga and you're really really well versed on the legal aspect of it.
SS
ßig
Unconfirmed Member
"Edgy." - EdgeCosmo Clock 21 said:
McBacon said:I was looking through the legal documents for a piece I was writing, and I came across this image from Langdell and just laughed and laughed.
He actually submitted that piece of shit to the judge. Looks like a fucking 10 year old drew it :lol
Why when there are real box art examples of the The Edge(tm) logo?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Tempy said:
There is no bar to them doing this now that they have the Mirrors Edge mark registered. Not even Langdell can stop someone using their own registered mark.
Azih said:
Hadn't considered it, but it's a thought. Would not want to do it on my own - would need collaboration with the guys from Chaosedge since they did the real work. But it might make a good cautionary tale, as well as a how-to manual for troll victims.
(I am working on - or at least fiddling around with - a film treatment of an 1850's case that I came across, so it isn't completely alien territory)
Tempy said:
Where is Gary Whitta when we need him? (And Alan Rickman if it comes to that).
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
phisheep said:
Hey Phi, great stuff as usual!
Quick question:
- Why would there be a greater burden of proof on other future claimants whrere Langdell has lost in the current case?
Or do you mean that it will simply be more evidentially difficult to prove substantial 'damage'.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Meanwhile, let's have a quick look at Langdell's lawyers - who have previous in this sort of case.
The lead attorney is this fellow.
Same guy who is acting for Motiva against Nintendo in the "we invented the Wiimote first, or at least wrote a really non-specific patent about communicating motion wirelessly, honest we did" case that was initially set for trial in Texas but has now been appealed back to Washington.
Admitted to practice in (amongst others) the Eastern District of Texas, which should come as no surprise.
Owns a 'lovable' pit bull called Spencer.
The lead attorney is this fellow.
Same guy who is acting for Motiva against Nintendo in the "we invented the Wiimote first, or at least wrote a really non-specific patent about communicating motion wirelessly, honest we did" case that was initially set for trial in Texas but has now been appealed back to Washington.
Admitted to practice in (amongst others) the Eastern District of Texas, which should come as no surprise.
Owns a 'lovable' pit bull called Spencer.
BobTheFork
Member
I have a question about this West Texas crap. I've mentioned that I wrote a paper last semester for Ethics class about the ethical implication of patent/trademark squatting and Langdell was a big part it. How or why is it ok or legal to just drag these cases (usually with neither party being stationed anywhere near Texas) into what are universally considered biased courts for so many trademark and patent trials.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
LabouredSubterfuge said:
What I'm thinking of here is if the current case finds fraud but only on a later renewal of a trademark rather than on initial application.
A case about activity that postdates the fraud that is found won't have have to set about proving it again. A case on earlier facts might have to show that the THEN trademark was somehow invalid, which would mean going through this stuff all over again, which costs a lot and is harder to prove.
All I mean by the burden of proof being greater is that there would be more stuff to prove.
- Status