|In Langdell's defence(!), he's not actually killing people with his dickery, so wishing a painful demise on him seems harsh, even for him.|
Edge owns Tim Langdell. Seriously (Edge) • Page 26
MetalDog 24,080 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 16 years ago
Cheers for the update phisheep. I do pop onto NeoGAF now and again just to see your awesome thread there
Looks like Langdell is at last contemplating defeat. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=51912276&postcount=687
Or at least,contemplating appealing after he loses, which kind of comes to the same thing.
Reacher 2,665 posts
Seen 14 minutes ago
Registered 7 years ago
I was hoping he'd come out with a SPEAR! and pose for 5 seconds.
Cheers again phisheep.
It seems like we've come such a long way from talking about whether he is still actively using the trademark for any of his own ventures.
I almost feel that if the first thing I'd read about it was this motion, that it'd be fair to assume that Tim couldn't possibly be wrong, such is the conviction behind his arguments.
So I'm glad I've read pretty much everything else, to put it in some context.
We appear to be getting close to the endgame here. The Board has ruled to have the trademarks cancelled, and the few motions that Langdell has submitted since are pretty well rubbish.
SuperBas 1,674 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 13 years ago
Any chance he will end up in jail?
I love that thread and all your posts, phisheep. I really do. Really curious to see if Langdell responds to your open letter. Heck, you've given him some really excellent advice in that thread yet all he seems to do is file motions, then file some more!
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 1 month ago
Registered 16 years ago
I don't think being a dick is a criminal offense, unless you're poor and being a dick.
pinebear 8,564 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 12 years ago
The USPTO has cancelled the five remaining Edge marks according to the linked post.
Update 17 April 2013 – TRADEMARKS CANCELLED! Game over – or is it?As phisheep explains, there are a few loose ends (outstanding trademarks in the UK and Germany and the possibility of further proceedings, for example) but the cancellation is an important milestone.
As Kendle indicated above (and total props to Kendle for breaking the news, he may be new to GAF but I've known him a long time on ChaosEdge and that was an absolute blinder of a first post!) four out of the five trademarks at issue in EA v Edge Games have now been cancelled “by court order”.
NeoGAF seem to have rewarded phisheep for all his fine work with a ban It was for the comments about possible legal action against Langdell which were admittedly a little bait-like but nothing banworthy, especially after those comments were deleted anyway. Poor show indeed, I say.
You'll always have a home here, phisheep!
Widge Moderator 13,859 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 10 years ago
NeoGAF banning users? Whatever next.
MrTomFTW Best Moderator, 2016 47,491 posts
Seen 13 seconds ago
Registered 15 years ago
You wouldn't have something like that happen around here.
Hi guys, are you OK if I make this a temporary home?
I'm not going to comment on the GAF ban, other than saying that GAF is GAF and it does things its own way and that is fine by me.
Langdell has filed two more things today, both belated attempts to avoid the inevitable. Will post more detail shortly.
binster 574 posts
Seen 6 days ago
Registered 9 years ago
Welcome back to the internets phi. Keep doing the good stuff!
Actually the two are the same thing more-or-less. the first is a letter to the Commissioner For Trademarks (with a big attachment) and the second is the same attachment. so luckily there is no need to read both of them.
Langdell makes two arguments:
- that the District Court order is invalid ("void on its face")
- that the case cannot be closed because there are two live matters before the Board
I'm not going to address the first, I've done it before interminably. The court order is not void, and if it were Langdell would have appealed by now. There's something like a zero chance he will find a lawyer to support that argument being as lawyers pressing stupid arguments are liable to end up with sanctions.
Now, about these two live issues. They are not as alive as all that. Plus is not at all relevant whether they are live or not.
Thing is, the cancellation of the trademarks as a result of the District Court ruling has nothing to do with the TTAB at all. It is completely independent of, and overrules, whatever TTAB decides. There is, in practise, no case before TTAB now except for the potential findings of fraud and/or abandonment against Langdell. Which means he is stupid to oppose the closure of the case as a result of the District Court rulings.
As to the "live matters" before the court:
The motion to confirm the District Court order void is rubbish. The TTAB has already ruled on that and rejected it
The motion to reconsider the Board's decision is equally rubbish, for reasons that really aren't worth going into (though if you ask, I'll tell).
And Langdell also issues a host of queries about EA and Future's lawyers (like for example raising the issue that EA took the case in house after the District court judgment, and somehow claiming that an inhouse rep is evidence that EA isn't taking the job seriously). You'd imagine wouldn't you that a company withe the size and reputation of EDGE GAMES would be able to afford a proper lawyer. Bad argument for Langdell to make.
There's probably more to it than that - but I'm tired and distressed and it is late. See you guys tomorrow.
EDIT: sorry for typos, it will take me probably more time that I want to spend getting the hang of the interface over here.
Edited by phisheep at 22:15:56 18-04-2013
Also, if one of you guys has a GAF account, would you kindly post on the GAF thread that I shall be doing updates here in the interim?
But check first, we want one post, not forty-three.
I'm an old oft-banned poster on here and lurk a lot on Neogaf since after self-banning myself from internet forums but had to log in. Hope you don't mind my asking; but what was the reasoning behind the alleged blackmail in the 'gaf thread? It seemed somewhat out-of-character and a bit unnecessary. I just want to know out of curiousity, don't feel you have to answer. The thread there was fascinating and it's a shame it got derailed.
As a note; I don't have a 'gaf thread otherwise I'd redirect them for you.
Just checked, the Neogaf thread is locked. Pretty ridiculous, all the work over the past 25 months now locked.
@itsoldsquarejaw: I am not going to comment, here or elsewhere, about the GAF ban. It is what it is.
@johnson81: I can't tell from here as I can't get into GAF, but last I heard the new thread that that I had just opened up was locked (and sensibly too, I had to open up a new thread for new news but it would take a while to transfer all the detailed background, so a mod locked it until next Tuesday). So far as I'm aware the older GAF thread is still alive - and so it should be. If it isn't, then we may have a problem.
The thread started in Dec 2010 is now locked. Couldn't see any others, I'll have to have another look.
Edit: Just found the other thread started yesterday. As you said, locked until next Tuesday.
Edited by johnson81 at 23:23:37 18-04-2013
Isn't he at risk of drawing attention to all the truly illegal stuff he's done if he pursues this ridiculous course?
@phisheep That's fair enough. Good luck with it all.
@itsoldsquarejaw : OK, I'll explain my reasoning, just this once. It has been apparent for several years now that Langdell was reading the GAF thread and taking advice from it. Not necessarily the best advice (usually quite the reverse), but advice nonetheless. That caused me some discomfort as I'm sure you can understand. What I was trying to do (perhaps somewhat crassly, but not illegally) was to open up a direct line of communication with Langdell so that we could get the personal stuff off of internet message boards. Actually I offered that line several years back, it's only recently that I backed it up with threats, and maybe that was a mistake. Certainly GAF thinks so, and I am not going to argue it. Not here anyhow. Been a lonely old time chasing this case over the years, and maybe it went to my head a bit. I'll take my punishment.
Edited by phisheep at 11:50:15 19-04-2013
For christ sake don't feel guilty about it. You've done as much as anyone with regards to raising awareness of the fraudulent bs Langdell has been pulling.
Langdell is scum and isn't worth dedicating emotional resources to. Neither is GAF. Fuck 'em.
I assume the thread was locked because it was impacting on an ongoing court case. I'm far from a legal expert, but surely this suggests that someone important views the invesigations within as potential evidence against him, and have locked it to prevent it from being corrupted by ongoing speculation (similar to how twitter/facebook users have been done for breaching court rules by talking about things that could affect a jury's opinion). Likewise I assume you were banned for similar reasons.
If this is true (like I say, I know very little about how it all really works, so is just common sense speculation on my part), then I don't think you've done much wrong.
Edited by SomaticSense at 12:21:47 19-04-2013
Retroid Moderator 45,444 posts
Seen 51 minutes ago
Registered 15 years ago
phisheep wrote:You're our wife now, Dave.
Hi guys, are you OK if I make this a temporary home?
Yup, I'll add my worthless, complete stranger moral support to your work, too, phisheep. I've always read it and found it fascinating, and you've always made the less accessible language of the legal documents much clearer for me.
It does all seem to be coming to a head now, with the cancellation of the trademarks. As the years of this story have dragged on, the continuing inability of Edge to actually make anything has proven that the worth of holding the trademarks has gone, anyway - there don't seem to be any edge-related products that anyone would defend against other people using the word. That's even before you get into the lengths to which Tim Langdell / Edge seemed to be prepared to go whenever anyone ever used the word Edge for anything at all.
Perhaps I'd feel differently if I held a trademark that I felt was being infringed, but it it was for stuff I'd done years ago that was no longer relevant, I'd hope that I'd have the ability to look at it impartially.
@SomaticSense It's probably much simpler than that. I think the thread has been (very sensibly) locked because there was a danger that it would become more about phisheep being banned than about the actual case. If so, then that's a good call. I do rather hope it gets unlocked when and if I get back so I can do some tidying up.
GAF is OK. Don't knock it (at least not in my sight). Sure, we have a little temporary disagreement here, but it one helluva a place to be.
Edited by phisheep at 12:30:08 19-04-2013
Edited by phisheep at 12:32:41 19-04-2013
Oh dear. We are yet again at the stage (just like in 2010-ish) where the internet claims everything is all over and gets everything wrong.
Videogamer.com, for example, reports that this decision clears the way for a Mirror's Edge 2. Bollocks. That way was cleared years ago when EA got the trademark for Mirror's Edge registered.
I think that's just wishful thinking tbh. An excuse to mention a potential Mirror's Edge 2.
That's a good thing though. Anything with the potential to subliminally implant a thinly disguised 'develop Mirror's Edge 2' into EA execs brains is a definite positive.
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.