The Edge of Reason

On the 16th May, the following day The Edge moved to register EDGY as a trademark in America. I press Langdell on the EDGY issue. He writes: "No proposal we have ever made to Mobigame regarding their changing the name of the game to EDGY has involved their paying us a licence [fee], or paying us any money at all."

But, if you had no intention of asking for licence fee to be paid to you for the use of EDGY, I ask, then why trademark the name the day after Mobigames first proposed the name change? "In hindsight it was a misunderstanding, probably in part caused by David Papazian's less than perfect English," he explains. "But at the point we were discussing the EDGY settlement in May we understood Mobigame was in agreement Edge would technically hold the EDGY registration and Mobigame would license it from us for free. This way Edge could use its legal team to protect Mobigame should anyone ever challenge Mobigame's use of EDGY".

This version of events is certainly not born out by the original emails. But besides that, why would The Edge want to protect an unrelated company for no recompense? Out of the goodness of their hearts? That seems unlikely, especially coming from a company run with Langdell's cutthroat business savvy.

England 2009

Despite all of the half-truths and heated email exchanges, one key question resounds above all others: what exactly does Tim Langdell's trademark of The Edge entitle him to? Will anyone who wants to release a videogame with the word 'Edge' in the title have to pay his company a licence fee? Langdell remains adamant that they do. He clearly thinks he has done nothing wrong. This month, following Apple's banning of the game, Sheridans Solicitors in London have taken up Mobigames' case. I ask Alex Chapman, the lawyer dealing with the case the million-dollar (plus legal fees) question.

"Mobigame's position is that the trademarks owned by Mr. Langdell's companies are not enforceable against Mobigame or any third party in respect of the distribution of the EDGE game," he replies. "There are two main reasons for this. First, there is unlikely to be any confusion or association between them and Mobigame's game and secondly Mobigame's position is that some of those registrations are liable to be revoked ."

When I put this to Langdell he reponds: "At this point we seriously do not know whether to laugh or cry."

This is a story it's easy to choose a side on. When David faces Goliath, few people cheer on the giant, especially when he's wielding a club and a court order. Accordingly, much of the reporting on the story has been slanted against Langdell. That's understandable. His tone is fractious, his claims seemingly exaggerated and self-aggrandising and, in threatening a two-man indie developer with legal action that, in his words, will potentially cost them "hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs [plus] three times [their] revenues" he inspires no sympathy. He writes like a bully, regardless of whether he has the law on his side or not.

But until a legal team can systematically pick apart his trademark claims - as indeed Chapman intends to - Langdell has a case, no matter how unsavory you find his tone, his alleged use of shill forum accounts to add volume to his arguments, or the way in which he flaunts his licensee's products as his own. Langdell clearly believes he has done nothing wrong and that his energetic confrontations are something that trademark law requires him to do. Fail to protect your trademark and you lose it, he tells me repeatedly.

There's no denying that Langdell has made a great many enemies over the past 30 years and there seems to be a gathering conglomerate of interested parties who want to see him and his companies brought down. International development industry forum The Chaos Engine has even set up a fund to help finance Mobigame's legal expenses. Most of the people I spoke to off the record seemed eager to offer anecdotes that reveal Langdell's true character and motivations, but something stops them. Some companies were unwilling to even allow a "no comment" statement to be published in this article next to their names. Perhaps that's because they're scared of litigation, or perhaps they don't want to compromise a case that they intend to bring against his company in the future. Whatever the reason, where Timothy Langdell is concerned, everybody treads carefully: when you're this close to the edge, one slip up could prove costly.