-
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
Lionheart1827
Member
Whenever this thread pops up I just expect more hilarity. 
Neuromancer
Member
Haha suck it LangdellSir_Crocodile said:
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Ive been out of touch for about a week with a busted power supply fan, so am a bit behind on everything.
But theres some movement, as you've all noticed.
Langdell has written to the USPTO purporting to appoint himself (yes, in person) as lead attorney in the cancellation case against EA. He appears to have done this without the consent of Future Publishing who I guess wouldnt readily consent to it anyway. Should be some fun in the next few weeks over this one.
Now, about that character defence that Langdell sent to Eurogamer. I havent seen the original document of this, but going by the Eurogamer article there are a few, shall we say, deficiencies in it.
Well, it isnt at all unusual for a trademark agreement to include such a clause requiring the holder to protect the mark. But it is usual that any such actions should be reasonable and legal and it certainly would not extend to, say, speculatively applying for registrations in order to extort agreements from other parties, or to the fraudulent manufacture of evidence, or to frenzied demands for the whole of a third partys revenue, or to falsely claiming licensing deals that do not exist.
Hmm. I think I can put that a bit more accurately. Edge would not have taken the action against EA had it not been faced with the prospect of a finding of fraud in the USPTO.
Except maybe for demanding the whole of Mobigames revenue for the sale of EDGE maybe? So that one is a lie and the emails are out there to prove it.
This is a strange new usage of the phrase ethically and with integrity that I have not previously come across, as it appears to encompass falsification of documents, forgery, perjury as well as, to say the least, sharp business practices.
As to bullying, check out the Mobigame correspondence.
To be fair, the internet has been rather loose in using the word sue in relation to most of Langdells activities. But theres more than one sort of legal action. Applying for a trademark is a legal action, so is falsely representing ones business in order to defend a trademark that has never been used in commerce and that there is no intention to use.
Thatll be interesting. Appeal courts are notoriously reluctant to challenge findings of fact made by the court of first instance, and the Chancery judgment was almost entirely findings of fact, not of law. That appeal wont succeed. Id be surprised if it ever got to court.
Interesting again. For there to be a counter-claim there must be a claim, which means that somewhere in the UK system Future has sued Edge probably, Id guess, for damages for breach of contract, or possibly for misrepresentation or both. Ah, I notice from above there's apparently a claim for contempt of court. That's odd. Must have a rummage in some books to see how that stacks up. I suspect that will be in addition to a separate claim in contract.
This notion of Future forcing Langdell to do all this nefarious stuff is laughable. Not least because the Chancery court finding against Langdell was pretty well all about his flagrant breaches of this exact same agreement.
Wonder what the next exciting instalment will be?
Just seen above the stuff about the latest RPS article. Will try to post soon about that.
But theres some movement, as you've all noticed.
Langdell has written to the USPTO purporting to appoint himself (yes, in person) as lead attorney in the cancellation case against EA. He appears to have done this without the consent of Future Publishing who I guess wouldnt readily consent to it anyway. Should be some fun in the next few weeks over this one.
Now, about that character defence that Langdell sent to Eurogamer. I havent seen the original document of this, but going by the Eurogamer article there are a few, shall we say, deficiencies in it.
Well, it isnt at all unusual for a trademark agreement to include such a clause requiring the holder to protect the mark. But it is usual that any such actions should be reasonable and legal and it certainly would not extend to, say, speculatively applying for registrations in order to extort agreements from other parties, or to the fraudulent manufacture of evidence, or to frenzied demands for the whole of a third partys revenue, or to falsely claiming licensing deals that do not exist.
Hmm. I think I can put that a bit more accurately. Edge would not have taken the action against EA had it not been faced with the prospect of a finding of fraud in the USPTO.
Except maybe for demanding the whole of Mobigames revenue for the sale of EDGE maybe? So that one is a lie and the emails are out there to prove it.
This is a strange new usage of the phrase ethically and with integrity that I have not previously come across, as it appears to encompass falsification of documents, forgery, perjury as well as, to say the least, sharp business practices.
As to bullying, check out the Mobigame correspondence.
To be fair, the internet has been rather loose in using the word sue in relation to most of Langdells activities. But theres more than one sort of legal action. Applying for a trademark is a legal action, so is falsely representing ones business in order to defend a trademark that has never been used in commerce and that there is no intention to use.
Thatll be interesting. Appeal courts are notoriously reluctant to challenge findings of fact made by the court of first instance, and the Chancery judgment was almost entirely findings of fact, not of law. That appeal wont succeed. Id be surprised if it ever got to court.
Interesting again. For there to be a counter-claim there must be a claim, which means that somewhere in the UK system Future has sued Edge probably, Id guess, for damages for breach of contract, or possibly for misrepresentation or both. Ah, I notice from above there's apparently a claim for contempt of court. That's odd. Must have a rummage in some books to see how that stacks up. I suspect that will be in addition to a separate claim in contract.
This notion of Future forcing Langdell to do all this nefarious stuff is laughable. Not least because the Chancery court finding against Langdell was pretty well all about his flagrant breaches of this exact same agreement.
Wonder what the next exciting instalment will be?
Just seen above the stuff about the latest RPS article. Will try to post soon about that.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
OK, just read the RPS article.
Being as it is based on a huge long document from Langdell that I haven't seen it is probably unfair of me to nitpick through the article and selective quotes here, as the bits quoted might not be the most legally significant ones.
I'll just note a few key points, but if anyone here from RPS (or anywhere else who has got it) would care to let me look at the full text I'll happily go through it with an incisive legal brain, because I find that sort of stuff fun.
Pretty well all spin. Although Langdell's correct that the EA settlement did not remove any common law rights that Langdell might have in the EDGE marks (and that's a good liberal approach, because removing people's common law rights is rather dictatorial), in order to assert those rights against anyone he would have to prove rather a lot, like that they are in commercial use and not abandoned and so on - none of which he can do.
So the common law rights aren't really worth anything.
Edge only retained the jointly-owned trademark pending the outstanding USPTO action for fraud and abandonment.
Nobody. But nobody. Has confirmed that the UK marks were valid (though EA may have in negotiation withdrawn a requirement to revoke them). I expect some movement in the UK and Germany on Langdell's outstanding marks.
Mobigame have every right to pursue their claim. They've recently applied for and got an international trademark for EDGE in respect of videogames, and it is completely proper for them to seek to defend it.
That's completely different from Langdell trolling EDGE when he had not used it as a trademark for 20 years and had no legitimate commercial interest in it.
Mobigame knows enough about not being a dick to not go down the Langdell route.
Tim's not a lawyer. that's pretty clear. In a civil case it is for the party asserting a fact to prove it. If Tim wants to assert that he sold some games then it is up to him to prove it. He didn't. He brought no credible evidence, only forged evidence.
All his fault.
Maybe because Langdell has got $300,000 of Future's money? Or was that pounds rather than dollars? Seems like a good investment to try and get at least some of it back.
Being as it is based on a huge long document from Langdell that I haven't seen it is probably unfair of me to nitpick through the article and selective quotes here, as the bits quoted might not be the most legally significant ones.
I'll just note a few key points, but if anyone here from RPS (or anywhere else who has got it) would care to let me look at the full text I'll happily go through it with an incisive legal brain, because I find that sort of stuff fun.
RockPaperShotgun quoting Langdell said:
Pretty well all spin. Although Langdell's correct that the EA settlement did not remove any common law rights that Langdell might have in the EDGE marks (and that's a good liberal approach, because removing people's common law rights is rather dictatorial), in order to assert those rights against anyone he would have to prove rather a lot, like that they are in commercial use and not abandoned and so on - none of which he can do.
So the common law rights aren't really worth anything.
Edge only retained the jointly-owned trademark pending the outstanding USPTO action for fraud and abandonment.
Nobody. But nobody. Has confirmed that the UK marks were valid (though EA may have in negotiation withdrawn a requirement to revoke them). I expect some movement in the UK and Germany on Langdell's outstanding marks.
Mobigame have every right to pursue their claim. They've recently applied for and got an international trademark for EDGE in respect of videogames, and it is completely proper for them to seek to defend it.
That's completely different from Langdell trolling EDGE when he had not used it as a trademark for 20 years and had no legitimate commercial interest in it.
Mobigame knows enough about not being a dick to not go down the Langdell route.
Tim's not a lawyer. that's pretty clear. In a civil case it is for the party asserting a fact to prove it. If Tim wants to assert that he sold some games then it is up to him to prove it. He didn't. He brought no credible evidence, only forged evidence.
All his fault.
Maybe because Langdell has got $300,000 of Future's money? Or was that pounds rather than dollars? Seems like a good investment to try and get at least some of it back.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Was this what you were looking for? they were registered in companies house which is where I found it, but have since changed their name... to edge europe!:
Company Details
Name & Registered Office:
EDGE EUROPE LIMITED
271 REGENT STREET
LONDON
UNITED KINGDOM
W1B 2ES
Company No. 06581756
Status: Active - Proposal to Strike off
Date of Incorporation: 01/05/2008
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: PRI/LTD BY GUAR/NSC (Private, limited by guarantee, no share capital)
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
7221 - Software publishing
Accounting Reference Date: 31/05
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/05/2009 (DORMANT)
Next Accounts Due: 28/02/2011 OVERDUE
Last Return Made Up To: 01/05/2010
Next Return Due: 29/05/2011 OVERDUE
Previous Names:
Date of change Previous Name
29/09/2010 BAIAS LIMITED
Company Details
Name & Registered Office:
EDGE EUROPE LIMITED
271 REGENT STREET
LONDON
UNITED KINGDOM
W1B 2ES
Company No. 06581756
Status: Active - Proposal to Strike off
Date of Incorporation: 01/05/2008
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: PRI/LTD BY GUAR/NSC (Private, limited by guarantee, no share capital)
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
7221 - Software publishing
Accounting Reference Date: 31/05
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/05/2009 (DORMANT)
Next Accounts Due: 28/02/2011 OVERDUE
Last Return Made Up To: 01/05/2010
Next Return Due: 29/05/2011 OVERDUE
Previous Names:
Date of change Previous Name
29/09/2010 BAIAS LIMITED
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Sir_Crocodile said:
Ah, brilliant stuff.
Never thought to look for a name change.
Well, that puts paid to Langdell's pretence that the company was nothing to do with EDGE at least. Interesting that there's a proposal to get it struck off the register, though that is hardly a surprise.
Thank you sir.
EDIT: And as a result, we now know that BAIAS is not the independent company that it purports to be, because on 20 Sep 2010 a filing was made for the change of particulars of a director, one Tim Langdell. Aha!
EDIT AGAIN: I forked out for the company documents. It is entirely a one-man show. There is one director (Langdell), one subscriber (Langdell), one member (Langdell) and no shareholders because it is a private company limited by guarantee. There's something about the way the objects of the company are worded that makes it look as though the intention was to register this as a charity - but I can't find any record of it with the Charities Commission thank goodness.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
The latest two submissions in the USPTO case reveal something about the tactics of the two defendants, Future Publishing and Langdell.
Future Publishing has filed a motion which, once you get through all the historical recitals of the story so far (and its a good summary), simply proposes that the USPTO should cancel the disputed trademark as the Federal Court ordered, and that all the other elements of EAs case should lie moot that means there would need to be no decision on them.
That means that Langdell would be let off the hook on the fraud charges at least so far as the USPTO case is concerned. It is curious that Future should essentially be so nice to Langdell. I can think of three possible reasons: (a) that there is something that Future does not want to come out in evidence (b) that they are concerned that if Langdells trademark was found to be fraudulently obtained then that might invalidate Futures trademark which is a daughter of Langdells (c) that they just want it all over quickly.
Rather typically, Langdells motion takes a much more aggressive stance, apparently unaware of the favour Future have put on the table. He now claims that two further trademarks are part-owned by Future and that they should not be cancelled either, and that the remaining two cancellations should be put on hold as well, just in case they turn out to be part owned by Future as well!
Hes trying to resuscitate the whole lot of them, and is apparently oblivious to the fact that this means he will have to answer the fraud allegations in fairly short order, which he has so far been striving to avoid.
Very odd.
The stupidest thing though, is that Im pretty sure that both these filings are procedurally out of order, since the case is suspended until the two defendants have appointed lead counsel, which I dont thing they have done though Langdell has tried to do so unilaterally.
Looks like this is winding up to be a bit of a dingdong battle at last.
Im off on holiday for much of the week, so will catch up when I return.
Future Publishing has filed a motion which, once you get through all the historical recitals of the story so far (and its a good summary), simply proposes that the USPTO should cancel the disputed trademark as the Federal Court ordered, and that all the other elements of EAs case should lie moot that means there would need to be no decision on them.
That means that Langdell would be let off the hook on the fraud charges at least so far as the USPTO case is concerned. It is curious that Future should essentially be so nice to Langdell. I can think of three possible reasons: (a) that there is something that Future does not want to come out in evidence (b) that they are concerned that if Langdells trademark was found to be fraudulently obtained then that might invalidate Futures trademark which is a daughter of Langdells (c) that they just want it all over quickly.
Rather typically, Langdells motion takes a much more aggressive stance, apparently unaware of the favour Future have put on the table. He now claims that two further trademarks are part-owned by Future and that they should not be cancelled either, and that the remaining two cancellations should be put on hold as well, just in case they turn out to be part owned by Future as well!
Hes trying to resuscitate the whole lot of them, and is apparently oblivious to the fact that this means he will have to answer the fraud allegations in fairly short order, which he has so far been striving to avoid.
Very odd.
The stupidest thing though, is that Im pretty sure that both these filings are procedurally out of order, since the case is suspended until the two defendants have appointed lead counsel, which I dont thing they have done though Langdell has tried to do so unilaterally.
Looks like this is winding up to be a bit of a dingdong battle at last.
Im off on holiday for much of the week, so will catch up when I return.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
It is no great surprise that Langdell has opposed Future's motion to just have the damn trademark cancelled already.
There's a lot of the usual guff in there, including this little gem:
That's an interesting point of view, but if it holds up it means that no civil case can ever be settled before trial - no divorce, no accident claim, no negligence claim, no employment dispute, no shipping claim, no nothing. So we'd have to pretty well do without an insurance industry for starters, plus massively increasing the costs of litigation for everybody, plus encouraging loads of false claims that cannot be sorted out quietly without the courts.
Can't see that one flying somehow.
Still, the USPTO deadline has passed without any sign of agreement between the two defendants on anything at all.
I guess they aren't talking.
The Board's response should be interesting, but it might take a while to emerge.
There's a lot of the usual guff in there, including this little gem:
Langdell said:
That's an interesting point of view, but if it holds up it means that no civil case can ever be settled before trial - no divorce, no accident claim, no negligence claim, no employment dispute, no shipping claim, no nothing. So we'd have to pretty well do without an insurance industry for starters, plus massively increasing the costs of litigation for everybody, plus encouraging loads of false claims that cannot be sorted out quietly without the courts.
Can't see that one flying somehow.
Still, the USPTO deadline has passed without any sign of agreement between the two defendants on anything at all.
I guess they aren't talking.
The Board's response should be interesting, but it might take a while to emerge.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Yeah... I knew shit was done for it when I saw this on Steam:
AuthenticM
Member
This is shit that's straight out of a movie. Awesome stuff.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Future Publishing has filed a giant set of documents with the USPTO. All 112 pages of it.
Luckily nearly all of it is repeating dockets and judgments from previous cases, and various affidavits in evidence. All we need be concerned about here is the first eight pages or so.
Fundamentally, Future is denying Langdell's attempts to bypass the agreed judgment in the Federal Court:
They explicitly say that Langdell is trying to avoid fraud charges, they make clear that the USPTO cannot simply ignore the federal court order as Langdell claims, and they expressly say that they have no objection to the trademarks being cancelled.
They also, and this is tangentially interesting, refer to Langdell as "Mr" rather than "Dr" throughout. Wonder if they have checked up whether he ever actually got a doctorate or whether that is yet another lie?
Reading between the lines, the motion also contains some polite and necessary-but-gentle criticism of the way the USPTO has handled the case so far (all this fiddling around with voluntary surrenders was never needed in the first place).
It is worth a read, partly because it gives a fresh view on the case - but only the first 8 pages!
Will be interesting to see how the Board responds to this. They need to get a grip soon, or the whole thing will vanish into bickering between the co-defendants.
Expect a response from Mr Langdell in the next few days as per usual.
Luckily nearly all of it is repeating dockets and judgments from previous cases, and various affidavits in evidence. All we need be concerned about here is the first eight pages or so.
Fundamentally, Future is denying Langdell's attempts to bypass the agreed judgment in the Federal Court:
They explicitly say that Langdell is trying to avoid fraud charges, they make clear that the USPTO cannot simply ignore the federal court order as Langdell claims, and they expressly say that they have no objection to the trademarks being cancelled.
They also, and this is tangentially interesting, refer to Langdell as "Mr" rather than "Dr" throughout. Wonder if they have checked up whether he ever actually got a doctorate or whether that is yet another lie?
Reading between the lines, the motion also contains some polite and necessary-but-gentle criticism of the way the USPTO has handled the case so far (all this fiddling around with voluntary surrenders was never needed in the first place).
It is worth a read, partly because it gives a fresh view on the case - but only the first 8 pages!
Will be interesting to see how the Board responds to this. They need to get a grip soon, or the whole thing will vanish into bickering between the co-defendants.
Expect a response from Mr Langdell in the next few days as per usual.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Two things today. The USPTO has made an interim ruling in the three-way cancellation case, and the Edge Games website has had a revival of sorts.
What the USPTO said
The USPTO has suspended the case pending disposition of outstanding motions.
Procedurally this is a bit odd, as the case was already suspended pending the appointment of lead counsel, but the whole thing got so messy that they had to do something.
First thing to note is that Langdell's attempt to unilaterally appoint himself as lead counsel for himself and Future Publishing hasn't worked. I didn't think it would. The deadline for the defendants to appoint lead counsel has been extended another 30 days - to about 24th September (which coincidentally is my birthday). That's how long Langdell and Future have to agree on something - either that or until Hell freezes over. I'm not at all sure what happens if they don't agree. Perhaps the worst case would be a judgment in default finding against the defendants on all counts - including the allegations of fraud against Langdell - in which case Future would have no incentive to agree anyway. Of course, given what Future have submitted, the best course for Langdell would be to agree to Future's lawyers being lead counsel, that way he would avoid any finding on the fraud allegations at all. But it seems he doesn't actually think that far ahead.
There will be some interesting rumblings behind the scenes on this.
Secondly, the Board has backtracked on its order that the (outstanding four) trademark registrations will be cancelled. That's not necessarily bad news. I think it is just there to clear the way for considering the outstanding motions.
Third, and most important, the Board is going to rule on the outstanding motions - and proceedings are suspended until they do. Like I said, this is procedurally odd since counsel hasn't been properly appointed yet and proceedings were supposedly suspended until that happened. But essentially the Board needs to rule whether they are bound by the Federal Court judgment (answer is yes) and whether Langdell has any grounds for bypassing or staying that judgment without returning to Federal Court (answer is no).
Those of us hoping for a quick slam-dunk ending will be disappointed, but it's good that the Board is at last tackling this issue head on (at Future's instigation).
On past performance it might take a couple of months to get a ruling here, but I'll keep an eye on things.
The Edge Games Website
There's an old Chinese proverb to the effect that when a man is faced with losing everything he spends the intervening weeks fiddling with his websites. It certainly holds true for Langdell.
While www.edgegames.co.uk is still (relatively) well-behaved, the US version at www.edgegames.com has had something of a revival of late.
Back comes a whole, and largely spurious, list of game releases. Back come multiple tabs. And back come spurious claims of licensing arrangements.
Let's have a little look at a few of the latter:
Amicable arrangement here meaning these are they guys that Langdell was caught forging emails from in front of the UK High Court recently? That amicable.
This is the amicable arrangement that the UK High Court rules had been repudiated, huh? You know what repudiated means?
No it isn't.
That's amicable as in blackmail probably.
An arrangement so amicable that Langdell surrendered the trademark last October. That amicable.
Well, except that there weren't any such sales, not by Marvel. Plus of course, Marvel testified to the Federal Court that they had no dealings with Langdell.
Oh, and he still claims to be developing games for Wii and goodness knows how many other platforms. Can't be bothered to go through the whole dreadful website though.
Potential Criminal Liability of Tim Langdell
As I guess all of you are, I'm getting a bit bored with the civil case shenanigans (though I'll keep them up to date), so I'm going to spend a bit of time to pin down what Langdell should be in jail for - and maybe how long. Looking mostly at the California Penal Code and the criminal law of England and Wales.
The main themes seem to be perjury, falsifying evidence, forgery, fraud, deception, extortion/blackmail, and perhaps various corporate offences.
On perjury, for example, there are probably about 30-40 well-documented counts each attracting 2-4 years jail (that's on California law).
But, on face value, it would be difficult to make an extortion charge stick in California, but relatively easy (given only the evidence that's already openly available) to bring at least one successful blackmail charge in England.
I'm going to have a good old rummage around and see what I can find. Any ideas gratefully received.
What the USPTO said
The USPTO has suspended the case pending disposition of outstanding motions.
Procedurally this is a bit odd, as the case was already suspended pending the appointment of lead counsel, but the whole thing got so messy that they had to do something.
First thing to note is that Langdell's attempt to unilaterally appoint himself as lead counsel for himself and Future Publishing hasn't worked. I didn't think it would. The deadline for the defendants to appoint lead counsel has been extended another 30 days - to about 24th September (which coincidentally is my birthday). That's how long Langdell and Future have to agree on something - either that or until Hell freezes over. I'm not at all sure what happens if they don't agree. Perhaps the worst case would be a judgment in default finding against the defendants on all counts - including the allegations of fraud against Langdell - in which case Future would have no incentive to agree anyway. Of course, given what Future have submitted, the best course for Langdell would be to agree to Future's lawyers being lead counsel, that way he would avoid any finding on the fraud allegations at all. But it seems he doesn't actually think that far ahead.
There will be some interesting rumblings behind the scenes on this.
Secondly, the Board has backtracked on its order that the (outstanding four) trademark registrations will be cancelled. That's not necessarily bad news. I think it is just there to clear the way for considering the outstanding motions.
Third, and most important, the Board is going to rule on the outstanding motions - and proceedings are suspended until they do. Like I said, this is procedurally odd since counsel hasn't been properly appointed yet and proceedings were supposedly suspended until that happened. But essentially the Board needs to rule whether they are bound by the Federal Court judgment (answer is yes) and whether Langdell has any grounds for bypassing or staying that judgment without returning to Federal Court (answer is no).
Those of us hoping for a quick slam-dunk ending will be disappointed, but it's good that the Board is at last tackling this issue head on (at Future's instigation).
On past performance it might take a couple of months to get a ruling here, but I'll keep an eye on things.
The Edge Games Website
There's an old Chinese proverb to the effect that when a man is faced with losing everything he spends the intervening weeks fiddling with his websites. It certainly holds true for Langdell.
While www.edgegames.co.uk is still (relatively) well-behaved, the US version at www.edgegames.com has had something of a revival of late.
Back comes a whole, and largely spurious, list of game releases. Back come multiple tabs. And back come spurious claims of licensing arrangements.
Let's have a little look at a few of the latter:
Amicable arrangement here meaning these are they guys that Langdell was caught forging emails from in front of the UK High Court recently? That amicable.
This is the amicable arrangement that the UK High Court rules had been repudiated, huh? You know what repudiated means?
No it isn't.
That's amicable as in blackmail probably.
An arrangement so amicable that Langdell surrendered the trademark last October. That amicable.
Well, except that there weren't any such sales, not by Marvel. Plus of course, Marvel testified to the Federal Court that they had no dealings with Langdell.
Oh, and he still claims to be developing games for Wii and goodness knows how many other platforms. Can't be bothered to go through the whole dreadful website though.
Potential Criminal Liability of Tim Langdell
As I guess all of you are, I'm getting a bit bored with the civil case shenanigans (though I'll keep them up to date), so I'm going to spend a bit of time to pin down what Langdell should be in jail for - and maybe how long. Looking mostly at the California Penal Code and the criminal law of England and Wales.
The main themes seem to be perjury, falsifying evidence, forgery, fraud, deception, extortion/blackmail, and perhaps various corporate offences.
On perjury, for example, there are probably about 30-40 well-documented counts each attracting 2-4 years jail (that's on California law).
But, on face value, it would be difficult to make an extortion charge stick in California, but relatively easy (given only the evidence that's already openly available) to bring at least one successful blackmail charge in England.
I'm going to have a good old rummage around and see what I can find. Any ideas gratefully received.
Neuromancer
Member
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Neuromancer said:
Not at all. I think it is very likely. Very likely indeed. There's plenty of hard evidence around for perjury and falsification at least, and for blackmail in the UK - and more is emerging as the USPTO goes through digitizing its files.
All it needs is for someone to get this in front of the relevant investigating authorities (and I'm entirely happy to do so myself, indeed eager!). BUT it doesn't make sense to do that until the civil litigation is over (because usually civil litigation will get stayed if there is a related criminal action, and all that does is disadvantage the wronged civil litigants).
Langdell has already blown it big time with his appalling and patently deceptive performances before senior courts in two countries. Only choice he has left - eventually - is whether to get jailed in the US or the UK or whether to flee to Venezuela.
Perjury in particular tends to get near-as-dammit mandatory jail sentences (up to 4 years in CA, 7 years in UK).
BobTheFork
Member
Phi, make sure send your invoice to Evilore, lord knows what we owe you for all the legal council.
Neuromancer
Member
You have my sword.phisheep said:
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Neuromancer said:
Thanks. Swoooosh! That feels good.
BobTheFork said:
Um, I don't think it was Evilore that needed the advice? Besides, he (Evilore) will have enough on his plate if Langdell ever sues me for libel, which he (Tim) might be tempted to do in a few weeks time - though that would be a very very bad idea.
BobTheFork
Member
I just mean you have given us so much good analysis and Evilore is in charge, so send you service bill to him : )phisheep said:
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
ymmv said:
I'm kind of assuming that he is reading it (after all, this thread comes up #2 on a google search for "EA v Edge Games", six spots above Judge Alsup's wonderful judgment).
I'm trying to be very even-handed in looking at whatever tactical options are available to the parties, but I do occasionally hold back on things that might be to Langdell's benefit in escaping from stuff.
Let's try an experiment shall we? Here goes.
As I sort of hinted a few posts earlier it is arguable that, since the cancellation proceedings were suspended pending appointment of lead counsel, and since Langdell's attempt to appoint himself unilaterally as lead counsel has failed, then both of the motions (Langdell's and Future's) since submitted are procedurally out of order and should be dismissed.
This sort of procedural irregularity is the sort of thing that might give rise to an appeal, and is worth challenging at first instance just so the point gets made so it can be appealed later. If Langdell is reading this and chooses to make this an issue I should point out that there is an upside and a downside for him if he makes it and succeeds.
The upside is that Future's motion that the damn trademarks should be cancelled anyway will be ruled out. There's a bigger upside in that this will delay the whole process more, which is good news for Tim.
The downside is that Langdell's motion to protect two, and possibly four, of the remaining trademarks will be ruled out as well. But there's a much bigger downside in that this will end up with a requirement to answer the fraud allegations in respect of TM 3105816.
However, such a submission would certainly muddy the waters a bit, and delay and muddiness appear to be Langdell's chief tactics at present.
Now, that's not actually what I would advise Langdell if he were my client. What I would advise is for him to accede to surrender all five of the US trademarks at issue and so avoid the fraud allegations. And then shut up shop, realise assets and scarper.
Let's see what happens ... over to you Mr Langdell.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
... in which Langdell gets trapped in a logical contradiction and Future seeks a way out of it ...
Langdell's motion dated 9th August contains, in the summary at the end, the following assertion:
However, he said this in a document filed by just one defendant (himself) - so by his own logic the Board should not consider the document in which he makes this case.
In other words, if what he says is true then it cannot be considered, and if it can be considered then it must logically be false and so his argument will fail.
Meanwhile, Future has made a further submission dated 23 August. It includes as exhibits full copies of the settlement agreement between EA and Edge, and the agreement to discontinue challenges to UK registrations. It also includes the killer lines:
and
Sounds good to me. Though if this succeeds we will miss the spectator sport of watching Langdell wriggle with the fraud accusations.
Langdell's motion dated 9th August contains, in the summary at the end, the following assertion:
Langdell motion said:
However, he said this in a document filed by just one defendant (himself) - so by his own logic the Board should not consider the document in which he makes this case.
In other words, if what he says is true then it cannot be considered, and if it can be considered then it must logically be false and so his argument will fail.
Meanwhile, Future has made a further submission dated 23 August. It includes as exhibits full copies of the settlement agreement between EA and Edge, and the agreement to discontinue challenges to UK registrations. It also includes the killer lines:
and
Sounds good to me. Though if this succeeds we will miss the spectator sport of watching Langdell wriggle with the fraud accusations.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Time for a sandwich.
EA, who have been very quiet recently while Langdell and Future threw motions at each other, have filed a response to Langdell's motion to have the federal court judgment ignored.
It's a short motion.
Just says that the trademarks should be cancelled because that's what the federal court said, and that they otherwise support Future's objection to Langdell's motion entirely.
They also mention in a footnote that Langdell has been up to his old tricks of not sending service copies of his motions to the other parties.
Langdell is now well and truly sandwiched.
EA, who have been very quiet recently while Langdell and Future threw motions at each other, have filed a response to Langdell's motion to have the federal court judgment ignored.
It's a short motion.
Just says that the trademarks should be cancelled because that's what the federal court said, and that they otherwise support Future's objection to Langdell's motion entirely.
They also mention in a footnote that Langdell has been up to his old tricks of not sending service copies of his motions to the other parties.
Langdell is now well and truly sandwiched.
boutrosinit
Street Fighter IV World Champion
Temrer said:Phisheep, pretty much everybody has said it already but you really are quite awesome
Agreed.
Magna_Mixalis
Member
This thread is all kinds of awesome. Allow me to add to the (much deserved) accolades.
@phisheep: You mentioned in your 8/26 post that there might be ways (however slim) for Mr. Langdell to escape the hangman's noose, as it were...
Why does this make me lose what little faith I have in the court system?
@phisheep: You mentioned in your 8/26 post that there might be ways (however slim) for Mr. Langdell to escape the hangman's noose, as it were...
Why does this make me lose what little faith I have in the court system?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Magna_Mixalis said:
It shouldn't make you lose faith at all.
This is a civil case, funded entirely by the parties themselves, and there's no reason for EA and Future to press any more than they have to do to get the result they need (which is getting the trademarks cancelled). If they can do that faster and cheaper by leaving the way open for Langdell to avoid a finding of fraud then that's all to the good for them.
Besides, a fraud finding in a civil court doesn't land the guy in jail. The standard of proof is different, the rules of evidence are different, and the court doesn't have that power either.
It wouldn't mean, though, that Langdell would escape entirely. There's the whole matter of criminal charges to be gone into - which is a matter for the police/investigating authorities and so on, and I expect there to be criminal charges following pretty fast after the civil actions are over.
Nothing wrong with that.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Here we go again.
The deadline for Langdell and Future to agree on either joint counsel or lead counsel has expired, and yet again Langdell has weighed in.
He states what we'd all have guessed, that Future have not agreed to have Langdell as lead counsel and that Edge Games will in no circumstances have Future's lawyers as lead counsel. Stalemate. So yet again, he seeks to have the court appoint him as lead counsel without Future's consent.
Like that'll work.
I'm not quite sure what happens next in this - whether there are effective sanctions against the defendants failing to agree (like for example losing the case by default, which would be an interesting backfiring).
Langdell also mentions that he will 'shortly' (which I read to mean, as usual, "at the very last minute or possibly beyond it") be filing responses to EA's and Future's latest motions.
Watch this space.
The deadline for Langdell and Future to agree on either joint counsel or lead counsel has expired, and yet again Langdell has weighed in.
He states what we'd all have guessed, that Future have not agreed to have Langdell as lead counsel and that Edge Games will in no circumstances have Future's lawyers as lead counsel. Stalemate. So yet again, he seeks to have the court appoint him as lead counsel without Future's consent.
Like that'll work.
I'm not quite sure what happens next in this - whether there are effective sanctions against the defendants failing to agree (like for example losing the case by default, which would be an interesting backfiring).
Langdell also mentions that he will 'shortly' (which I read to mean, as usual, "at the very last minute or possibly beyond it") be filing responses to EA's and Future's latest motions.
Watch this space.
AuthenticM
Member
I hope this guy gets his.
SiegfriedFM
Member
I don't need to watch reality shows to see interesting things happen to stupid people, I get it all here in this thread.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
This paragraph from Langdells latest submission deserves some scrutiny.
Yep, hes complaining that his co-defendant Future isnt defending his trademarks!
Hes missed entirely the point that any defendant in any legal action at all can take whatever stance they want to. Just because you are named Langdells co-defendant doesnt mean you owe him anything. Probably quite the reverse.
A few months ago Langdell seemed to think it was some kind of victory getting Future on his side. He should have remembered what happened when he thought that Velocity Micro was on his side in the UK High Court when they confirmed that the UK sales of Edge products was er zero.
It appears not to have occurred to the guy that he has no friends. Only enemies.
This whole thing is starting to look like a series of spectacularly choreographed pratfalls by Langdell, played out in the super-slow-motion that is the court system.
However, I dont think all this fuss about lead counsel need get in the way of the Board considering Futures motion to just have the damn trademarks cancelled. You only need lead counsel if theres going to be a trial, or at least some pre-trial activity. But Futures motion (supported by EA) is that there doesnt need to be a trial, because all that the USPTO has to do is cancel the trademarks as the Federal Court ordered. That motion can be considered and dealt with without any need for lead counsel at all, because it was an order directed to the USPTO, not to the parties involved.
Yep, hes complaining that his co-defendant Future isnt defending his trademarks!
Hes missed entirely the point that any defendant in any legal action at all can take whatever stance they want to. Just because you are named Langdells co-defendant doesnt mean you owe him anything. Probably quite the reverse.
A few months ago Langdell seemed to think it was some kind of victory getting Future on his side. He should have remembered what happened when he thought that Velocity Micro was on his side in the UK High Court when they confirmed that the UK sales of Edge products was er zero.
It appears not to have occurred to the guy that he has no friends. Only enemies.
This whole thing is starting to look like a series of spectacularly choreographed pratfalls by Langdell, played out in the super-slow-motion that is the court system.
However, I dont think all this fuss about lead counsel need get in the way of the Board considering Futures motion to just have the damn trademarks cancelled. You only need lead counsel if theres going to be a trial, or at least some pre-trial activity. But Futures motion (supported by EA) is that there doesnt need to be a trial, because all that the USPTO has to do is cancel the trademarks as the Federal Court ordered. That motion can be considered and dealt with without any need for lead counsel at all, because it was an order directed to the USPTO, not to the parties involved.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I spent a day in court today, first for a long time. Lots of interesting tactical stuff, ending with a criminally devious lying thug getting his comeuppance.
Where was I? Oh yes, Tim Langdell.
You wait for ages for something to happen on this case then all of a sudden three motions get filed all at once. Here goes:
1) Future Publishing respond to the rows about who is going to be lead counsel
Youll remember that Edge and Future could to nobodys surprise not agree on who was to be lead counsel for the two of them, and that Langdell had unilaterally claimed that he should be. Future have just filed a response confirming the disagreement, and suggesting that Langdell should not be lead counsel because (a) he is not an attorney and (b) he is in the habit of not serving papers properly or at all. Instead, they ask the court to appoint lead counsel.
That seems perfectly proper to me, and the point about Langdell not being an attorney is important. Non-attorneys may represent themselves but may not (usually) represent others. Perhaps Langdell needs to read 37 CFR sect 2.17(a) again.
2) Langdell tries to avoid cancellation of trademark 3105816
Im taking Langdells motions in reverse order, as this one makes more sense. Sort of. It is uncannily like watching the desperate last thrashings of a beached whale as it seeks to return itself to an unfortunately shark-infested ocean.
The motion is snappily titled Defendant Edge Games Incs Response to Co-defendant Futures Reply to Edge Games Opposition to Futures Motion to Cancel Reg No 3105816 Pursuant to District Court Judgment. Put more simply, Future had moved to get the damn trademark cancelled simply on the basis thats what the District Court ordered, but Langdell doesnt agree.
Para 1 attempts to characterise Futures stance in the case (siding with EA) as an act of collusive commercial sabotage against Edge. It has no legal force in the current argument. More of a ranty whine.
Paras 2-7 claim, rather longwindedly, that the District Court judgment was void ab initio on the grounds that it sought to bind a third party (Future) that was not a party to the proceedings.
Thats an interesting line, and theres a bunch of case law that backs it up. It sort of makes sense that in a civil action between two parties, the court shouldnt be able to order another party to do something to resolve the case without that party having the opportunity to be heard. But theres a big gaping hole in applying that caselaw here.
You see, the order that the court made didnt seek to bind Future Publishing at all, it didnt even bind them after the fact and it doesnt bind them now. Theres nothing at all that Future is bound to do as a result of that order. Thats because the order (the relevant part of it) was addressed, not to Future and not to Edge and not to both of them, but to the USPTO.
Aha! But the USPTO wasnt a party to the proceedings either (as you or maybe Langdell, might say). Doesnt matter, because the District Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the USPTO in trademark matters, so the USPTO isnt a third party because it isnt a party at all here it is performing the role of part of the judicial system.
Paras 8-10 suggest that the court order would not apply even if it were not void, since the only grounds for cancelling a registration are (i) fraud, (ii) abandonment, (iii) genericism and the order gave no grounds for cancellation and the settlement agreement explicitly stated there were no admissions or stipulations as to wrongdoing.
Langdell should perhaps re-read sect 1119 of the Lanham Act, which explicitly states that the court may order the cancellation of registrations. There's no mention of it having to give reasons. So thats a losing argument.
Paras 11-14 argue that if the USPTO fails or refuses to cancel the registrations, the settlement agreement comes into play which stipulates that a voluntary surrender should take place. This is in fact the procedure that was followed and led us into this mess in the first place.
Trouble is, it doesnt apply. Because the USPTO has at no point refused to cancel the registrations, and it has failed to do so so far only because nobody asked (well, except the District Court!). Now they have been asked, theres no reason for them not to especially since Future have consented.
So I expect this motion to be dismissed in full.
3) Langdell tries to reverse surrender of trademarks 3559342 and 2219837
This one is going to take some trawling through to make what sense I can out of it. It isn't helped by the fact that Langdell makes great play out of some attached schedules to an attached declaration, all of which he seems to have forgotten to attach.
If you're reading this Tim, I can't do free legal advice without reading the whole document. Otherwise, I should be back with some notes in a couple of hours.
Where was I? Oh yes, Tim Langdell.
You wait for ages for something to happen on this case then all of a sudden three motions get filed all at once. Here goes:
1) Future Publishing respond to the rows about who is going to be lead counsel
Youll remember that Edge and Future could to nobodys surprise not agree on who was to be lead counsel for the two of them, and that Langdell had unilaterally claimed that he should be. Future have just filed a response confirming the disagreement, and suggesting that Langdell should not be lead counsel because (a) he is not an attorney and (b) he is in the habit of not serving papers properly or at all. Instead, they ask the court to appoint lead counsel.
That seems perfectly proper to me, and the point about Langdell not being an attorney is important. Non-attorneys may represent themselves but may not (usually) represent others. Perhaps Langdell needs to read 37 CFR sect 2.17(a) again.
2) Langdell tries to avoid cancellation of trademark 3105816
Im taking Langdells motions in reverse order, as this one makes more sense. Sort of. It is uncannily like watching the desperate last thrashings of a beached whale as it seeks to return itself to an unfortunately shark-infested ocean.
The motion is snappily titled Defendant Edge Games Incs Response to Co-defendant Futures Reply to Edge Games Opposition to Futures Motion to Cancel Reg No 3105816 Pursuant to District Court Judgment. Put more simply, Future had moved to get the damn trademark cancelled simply on the basis thats what the District Court ordered, but Langdell doesnt agree.
Para 1 attempts to characterise Futures stance in the case (siding with EA) as an act of collusive commercial sabotage against Edge. It has no legal force in the current argument. More of a ranty whine.
Paras 2-7 claim, rather longwindedly, that the District Court judgment was void ab initio on the grounds that it sought to bind a third party (Future) that was not a party to the proceedings.
Thats an interesting line, and theres a bunch of case law that backs it up. It sort of makes sense that in a civil action between two parties, the court shouldnt be able to order another party to do something to resolve the case without that party having the opportunity to be heard. But theres a big gaping hole in applying that caselaw here.
You see, the order that the court made didnt seek to bind Future Publishing at all, it didnt even bind them after the fact and it doesnt bind them now. Theres nothing at all that Future is bound to do as a result of that order. Thats because the order (the relevant part of it) was addressed, not to Future and not to Edge and not to both of them, but to the USPTO.
Aha! But the USPTO wasnt a party to the proceedings either (as you or maybe Langdell, might say). Doesnt matter, because the District Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the USPTO in trademark matters, so the USPTO isnt a third party because it isnt a party at all here it is performing the role of part of the judicial system.
Paras 8-10 suggest that the court order would not apply even if it were not void, since the only grounds for cancelling a registration are (i) fraud, (ii) abandonment, (iii) genericism and the order gave no grounds for cancellation and the settlement agreement explicitly stated there were no admissions or stipulations as to wrongdoing.
Langdell should perhaps re-read sect 1119 of the Lanham Act, which explicitly states that the court may order the cancellation of registrations. There's no mention of it having to give reasons. So thats a losing argument.
Paras 11-14 argue that if the USPTO fails or refuses to cancel the registrations, the settlement agreement comes into play which stipulates that a voluntary surrender should take place. This is in fact the procedure that was followed and led us into this mess in the first place.
Trouble is, it doesnt apply. Because the USPTO has at no point refused to cancel the registrations, and it has failed to do so so far only because nobody asked (well, except the District Court!). Now they have been asked, theres no reason for them not to especially since Future have consented.
So I expect this motion to be dismissed in full.
3) Langdell tries to reverse surrender of trademarks 3559342 and 2219837
This one is going to take some trawling through to make what sense I can out of it. It isn't helped by the fact that Langdell makes great play out of some attached schedules to an attached declaration, all of which he seems to have forgotten to attach.
If you're reading this Tim, I can't do free legal advice without reading the whole document. Otherwise, I should be back with some notes in a couple of hours.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
Who knew legalese could be so epic?
AlphaTwo00
Member
Once again, phisheep, thank you for all this new info.
Azure Dream
Member
Yes, thanks indeed. I'm constantly amazed that one of his most prevalent strategies is "pretend to forget to submit documents." Once or twice, ok. Over, and over, and over? Who the hell does he think he's fooling at this point?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Im about half way through that Langdell motion and I need a break - and some sleep before the Rugby tomorrow. So meanwhile heres two possibly relevant things that may affect the case going forwards.
Section 1119 Lanham Act
In full this reads:
Note especially the court may order the cancellation of registrations and the Director shall make appropriate entry upon the records. So the Director of the USPTO has no discretion to do anything other than cancel the registrations. None at all.
But, this has no effect on the recently-revived cancellation case brought by EA. Those allegations of fraud and abandonment are still live, and Langdell, because of the court order, no longer has cancellation as a bargaining chip (well, assuming the USPTO does what they are legally obliged to do and cancels the things).
Once the current shenanigans are out of the way, the best and cheapest option for EA is simply to request the court to require Langdell to answer the allegations. This is something he definitely does not want to do. But nobody has to spend any money for the pleasure of watching him try to wriggle out of it when he no longer has anything to bargain with.
Everet v Williams (1725 unreported)
Among my top-5 cases of all time (top one is Jorden v Money (1854) for the between-the-lines backstory, which would make a wonderful movie). The case papers lay undiscovered until eventually reported in July 1893 in the Law Quarterly Review. The two protagonists were highwaymen (armed robbers) who had reached an agreement to share the proceeds of their crimes, one of them defaulted and the other stupidly sued. The agreement was held to be void for illegality and both parties were shortly afterwards arrested and hanged.
This is relevant to the Langdell case, since it looks like he is trying to set up a defence that he was compelled to do all these bad things by his contracts with Future Publishing, and is hoping to pass all or some of the blame on to them.
It wont work. Ex turpi non causa theres no cause of action arising from an illegality. Everet v Williams (1725).
Note the date. Before American independence. In common law a judgment is effective and binding when it is made, not when it is reported. So this case is part of the common law inherited by (nearly all) the States. There are of course, many more recent cases and statutes (and different ones in different places) about the same thing, but they all come to the same point - that you can't raise an action (or for that matter a defence mostly) on the back of claiming you were bound by a contract to do something illegal.
Section 1119 Lanham Act
In full this reads:
Note especially the court may order the cancellation of registrations and the Director shall make appropriate entry upon the records. So the Director of the USPTO has no discretion to do anything other than cancel the registrations. None at all.
But, this has no effect on the recently-revived cancellation case brought by EA. Those allegations of fraud and abandonment are still live, and Langdell, because of the court order, no longer has cancellation as a bargaining chip (well, assuming the USPTO does what they are legally obliged to do and cancels the things).
Once the current shenanigans are out of the way, the best and cheapest option for EA is simply to request the court to require Langdell to answer the allegations. This is something he definitely does not want to do. But nobody has to spend any money for the pleasure of watching him try to wriggle out of it when he no longer has anything to bargain with.
Everet v Williams (1725 unreported)
Among my top-5 cases of all time (top one is Jorden v Money (1854) for the between-the-lines backstory, which would make a wonderful movie). The case papers lay undiscovered until eventually reported in July 1893 in the Law Quarterly Review. The two protagonists were highwaymen (armed robbers) who had reached an agreement to share the proceeds of their crimes, one of them defaulted and the other stupidly sued. The agreement was held to be void for illegality and both parties were shortly afterwards arrested and hanged.
This is relevant to the Langdell case, since it looks like he is trying to set up a defence that he was compelled to do all these bad things by his contracts with Future Publishing, and is hoping to pass all or some of the blame on to them.
It wont work. Ex turpi non causa theres no cause of action arising from an illegality. Everet v Williams (1725).
Note the date. Before American independence. In common law a judgment is effective and binding when it is made, not when it is reported. So this case is part of the common law inherited by (nearly all) the States. There are of course, many more recent cases and statutes (and different ones in different places) about the same thing, but they all come to the same point - that you can't raise an action (or for that matter a defence mostly) on the back of claiming you were bound by a contract to do something illegal.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
inky said:
Right. Spot on. But I'm not sure that Tim is actually fully aware of that yet.
Oh, incidentally, apparently he really is a Dr Langdell. I found his thesis. Mind you, I haven't been through it and checked for plagiarism yet, but maybe if I get bored ...
As I've said a couple of times (but hey, I'm a helluva patient guy) he won't get fines/jail/gaol from this court. Wrong sort of court.
But I have been going painstakingly through the criminal codes and so far it seems to me he has racked up:
- 30-40 counts of perjury
- about 5 counts of falsifying evidence
- maybe 20 of knowingly presenting falsified evidence
- at least one solid case of blackmail and another 2 or 3 possibles
- at least 2 of forgery
- There's a bunch of ornery fraud/deception stuff as well but the details vary a lot by jurisdiction so it is a bit hard to pin it down
And that's only on what is already publicly visible. So I don't think the the fines/jail/gaol will be all that far behind (and criminal courts tend to work faster than civil courts anyhow).
For now, we just have to wait and see a bit.
- Status