zomboid

The sad sad tale of Tim Langdell

Recommended Posts

Do you think maybe T Langdell actually believes this stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think maybe T Langdell actually believes this stuff?

He probably thinks his actions are justified. So yes, in a very curvy sort of way. That's the scary thing about people like him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure he feels damn angry at the government that he has to do all these embarrassing things to trick the stupid bureaucrats into doing what is JUST AND RIGHT—which is, let him enforce his perpetual copyright on all things even tenuously related to this one thing he made in the Victorian times.

:edge: :edge: :edge:

I dig the silly little jowl that wraps around his goatee, and also how his face looks more concave than convex (or maybe somewhat Picassoesque, what with us seeing both the right side of his nose and the entire left side of his face)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dig the silly little jowl that wraps around his goatee, and also how his face looks more concave than convex (or maybe somewhat Picassoesque, what with us seeing both the right side of his nose and the entire left side of his face)...

I hadn't seen any of that before. You just completely blew my mind now and I can't ever look at that smiley the same way again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hadn't seen any of that before. You just completely blew my mind now and I can't ever look at that smiley the same way again.

I think I cut out that photo into an emoticon. I think I cut it out because dude had such a weird face in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he... Talking about himself in the 3rd person? I agree though, it was really ethical when he faked that evidence. A lot of integrity there. :tdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mobigames responded. They're fighting fire with fire in an attempt to get EdgeBobby2 removed from the Apple Store through allegations of trademark infringement on their own trademark on the common English word "Edge." I do like their claim that Edge doesn't actually own the rights to the Bobby Bearing IP, but using Langdell's MO against him is more sickening than poetic.

Also, Langdell continues to sink ever deeper into his own delusions:

Edge has also filed a counter-claim against Future for "damage of reputation" caused by the Mobigame case, and for Future not promoting Edge's use of the trademark as was apparently the agreement. "Edge is extremely confident it will prevail on the counter-claim."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-07-22-mobigame-slams-langdell-edge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, because the board game looks awful to you, the creator doesn't get to enjoy the same intellectual property laws that also protects DoubleFine's creations?

Trenched distribution issues have nothing to do with some individual abusing the trademark system but with Microsoft neglecting one of its publishing duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, because the board game looks awful to you, the creator doesn't get to enjoy the same intellectual property laws that also protects DoubleFine's creations?

Trenched distribution issues have nothing to do with some individual abusing the trademark system but with Microsoft neglecting one of its publishing duty.

Yes, I'm evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I'm evil.

Can you please change your avatar to this, then ?

11253.gif

This, more so than Hobbes, would help us to read your posts in the appropriate voice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have more time now, so I'll explain why I said what I said. Please read it in whatever voice you consider most appropriate ;)

Copyright law is NOT there to protect the person who got there first. Apple were not the first company to make a phone called iPhone, they weren't even the first company named Apple. Copyright is there to protect something that's already doing well, so someone can't take advantage of your success. It's not there to stifle innovation and progression.

Trench is an ultra obscure board game that isn't doing well. Their claim to the name across the entirety of Europe is absurd. Nobody buying Double Fine's game is thinking, "ooh! They made a video game of my favourite board game!" and then, "hey, wait a minute this isn't to do with the board game... I've been conned!". In short, Double Fine aren't trying to make money off the back of a successful IP.

I predict the whole case is going to be resolved soon.

What about this game, I wonder?

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/trenches/id340769953?mt=8

What about these games? How do they fit in?

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/68387/trenchzone

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/17660/trench-wars

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you're right with your interpretation of copyright/trademark/IP laws, but I'm not going to debate on that since I'd be channeling Wikipedia and wouldn't know what I'd be talking about.

However, I really don't feel that your interpretation is particularly fair : would you say the same thing if the role were reversed and DoubleFine were to defend the Stacked game against a higher profile boardgame involving Russian Dolls ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trademarks exist for the protection of customers, not for the protection of the companies.

I can't imagine a customer getting confused between a boardgame or a Video game with similar names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This whole thing reminds me of Trenched, and that awful looking board game.

Sorry but after actually looking up the game, I cannot agree in the slightest. The game in question (to be released this year NOT in 1975). It mixes the clean aesthetic look of something like Abalone, with the idea of abstract warfare. Their website is here: http://www.criacoesasolo.com/#main-tabs.

I don't give a fuck about the copyright shit overall, but, boardgames tend to sell tiny numbers compared to video games, if they can get any publicity out of this then good for them, maybe they'll get a few thousand extra sales out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but after actually looking up the game, I cannot agree in the slightest. The game in question (to be released this year NOT in 1975). It mixes the clean aesthetic look of something like Abalone, with the idea of abstract warfare. Their website is here: http://www.criacoesasolo.com/#main-tabs.

I don't give a fuck about the copyright shit overall, but, boardgames tend to sell tiny numbers compared to video games, if they can get any publicity out of this then good for them, maybe they'll get a few thousand extra sales out of it.

What is it that you're disagreeing with exactly? There's not a single thing I disagree with in your post...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is it that you're disagreeing with exactly? There's not a single thing I disagree with in your post...?
This whole thing reminds me of Trenched, and that awful looking board game.

That.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, I really don't feel that your interpretation is particularly fair : would you say the same thing if the role were reversed and DoubleFine were to defend the Stacked game against a higher profile boardgame involving Russian Dolls ?

I honestly can't imagine the situation reversed, so I don't know. From looking at it more, the strength of this case seems to come from the claim that they always planned to make a video game. So maybe it's not so far fetched after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trademarks exist for the protection of customers, not for the protection of the companies.

I can't imagine a customer getting confused between a boardgame or a Video game with similar names.

This is the second time you've tried to troll me this week. What gives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the second time you've tried to troll me this week. What gives?

:erm: !? I'm not trolling you. I was just stating that trademarks serve a different role than copyright and patents. And that I think the trademark issue around Trech/Trenched is dumb. As far as I can tell, I'm more or less agreeing with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should just rebrand it as Trenchwalkers and be done with it.

Trench.. Trenched... Trench... I've read/thought the word so many times now that it lost all meaning! Weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now