You can't use the word EDGE in your game.

[Noctrine]

Hi folks,

Since you aren't all official IGDA members I wanted to pass this on to you - you won't be able to vote in the survey but I wanted to bring it to your attention so that you know some of what is going on within our organization. If you read some of the game blogs, you'll have heard rumblings about this, but it seems the issue is coming to a head now.

The message below outlines the situation in pretty good detail, so I'll leave it to you to have a look and see how you feel about it. I have already cast my vote in the survey, but of course the board members are always listening when there are further things to be said, so if there is anything any of you would like to bring up, or have any of us full members bring up, please speak up and we will make sure to make your voices heard.

> The actions of IGDA board member Tim Langdell since his election in March 2009 have raised questions regarding his suitability as our elected representative. As you no doubt know, the IGDA's mission is: To advance the careers and enhance the lives of game developers by connecting members with their peers, promoting professional development, and advocating on issues that affect the developer community.
>
> Tim Langdell's company, Edge Games, has trademarked the word "edge" and they leverage this trademark against any media that contains this word--threatening legal action should their target not enter into a licensing arrangement with the studio. Such targets have included David Mamet's film The Edge, Marvel's comic book Edge, EA's Mirror's Edge, and Namco's Soul Edge, which was released as Soul Blade and later, Soulcalibur in the west as a direct result of Edge Games' actions. Most recently their actions have resulted in the removal of the indie game hit, Edge, from the iPhone app store.
>
> Meanwhile, Edge Games has not been associated with the direct production of an original video game in the last fifteen years.
>
> After his election to the IGDA board, in a lawsuit against Cybernet regarding Edge of Extinction, Tim Langdell presented himself to the court like this: "Dr. Tim Langdell is considered to be a pioneer in the field of computer gaming and is widely publicized on the Internet and has been engaged as a legal expert in the field of computer gamin." He adds "He presently serves on the Board of Directors of the International Game Developers Association, which is the largest game association worldwide".
>
> Many of us believe that this is a gross misrepresentation and feel that Tim Langdell is able to use his position on the board of the IGDA to work directly against the mission of the organization. As IGDA members with voting rights, it is our responsibility to elect a board that we can trust to represent us. But no election system is perfect and sometimes corrections need to be made.
>
> We are asking that you take some time to consider this issue, do a little research online, make up your mind how you feel about it, and take action.
>
> Under the IGDA bylaws, we are able to call for a special meeting of the membership to vote on the removal of Tim Langdell from the board of directors. In order to do this, we need 10% of the membership to request the board call the special meeting. We are hosting a petition to this effect here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=6 ... _2fA_3d_3d
>
> Thank you for your consideration,
> Concerned Members of the IGDA

Best regards,
Cristopher Boyer
IGDA Detroit

I think I will name the ArpyG sample game. Edge of the Edge, just because...

[hallsofvallhalla]

he hasnt won any of these lawsuits that I know of and I doubt he will. He also needs to sue Pizza hut for their new Edge Pizza. Ain't happening. But I say fire the VP.

[Noctrine]

Sadly, I'm not a voting member yet. So if this goes to vote, I still won't have a say.

[towcar]

I can't see him winning any of that, the only time it would make sense to vote for him is if he was some sorta hero, like Wayne Gretzkys '99 in hockey

[Noctrine]

That's the thing, he has already gotten people to give in an license the name. That one dude was just the first guy to fight back.

[Jackolantern]

It's sad that a lot of these types of trademark cases fill up the courts. The bottom line is that for a trademark case to be won, there has to be reasonable concern that the use of the word or logo could mislead consumers to purchase a different product. For example, I cannot make a jacket and put the Nike "swish" logo on it, nor could I put "Just do it" and no logo on it, because both are trademarks of Nike, and Nike makes similar products today. If this company has not made a product in 15 years, any company will be able to pretty easily argue that it can't mislead the public because there is nothing for them to purchase from the original trademark holder. Just a word is very hard to hold up anyway. Calvin Klein colognes and perfumes were famous in the 90s for using only a single word for their scents. But are the words "be" and "one" off limits now for any product? No. These companies who have given in probably had no money to even show up in court with a lawyer. One of the people to give in was an indie developer, and the other was an iPhone developer (who are often very small indies as well). The big dogs, such as EA and Marvel aren't budging on it, and they will win. If trademarks like this could hold up in court, the same people who bought up every domain you can think of would have trademarked every word as well.

This guy needs to be removed from the board of directors, because he is just taking up space there to further his own agenda, like they are suggesting. You haven't made a game in a very long time. You have nothing to do with making games. You are only in court trying to bully money out of people over a word.

At the end of the day, a name is not very important. I don't even think of names for most of the game ideas I have because you can just slap in on at the end, or you can change it any time you like. A lot of people will just change it without care.

[Noctrine]

He doctor's up images to support his cases of infringment, the Indie Game Development SIG of the IGDA has some information about it. And likewise, I don't think of names until far into the development process.

But yeah, the guy is bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDGE_Games Should give you some more insight, or atleast lead you to more of it.

[hallsofvallhalla]

i am sure Microprose just didnt want that kind of publicity on them. Figured it was easier to change it.

[Noctrine]

I messed up, and fixed it you must have been posting before. It was mobigames. Lil-ish iphone people.

But still some of the stuff in there is like, what?

[Jackolantern]

Edge is best known for its 1985 title Fairlight and its 1987 title Garfield: Big Fat Hairy Deal

"RACERS" (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, PC)

Wow, this guy knows a great title when he sees one.

MIRRORS" (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, PC, PSP, DS, iPhone)

Of course a developer who has not made a game since the SNES days (the entry says since 1994, but no titles are listed from that year) would be well-versed in porting a title between every popular platform available today. These stupid "projects" this guy is working on are just vaporware titles so he can try to keep his spot in IGDA and appear relevant in the game industry. His IGDA directorship is the only reason why any of these lawsuits could come close to having an ounce of reason.

According to the email dialogue between Langdell and Mobigames head David Papazian, shared with Eurogamer, Langdell delivered an ultimatum to Mobigames in exchange for a promise not to litigate. If they changed the game's name, he demanded 25% of the game's revenue for the time the title was on sale under the name "edge", and if they licenced the Edge name, they would give him 10% of the game's revenue in perpetuity and subtitle it "An Homage To [Edge Games title] Bobby Bearing", with the Edge Games logo on the title screen.

Good, God. How much does it cost to join IGDA just so I can sign the petition?