|
First off, I am speaking now as myself, and not on behalf of the IGDA. Bob Bates, the IGDA Board Chair, has already done that here. Also, I would like to say that I have known Simon Carless and Tim Langdell for many years and condider them both to be friends...but this whoe thing stinks.
This
dispute relates to a company enforcing its properly registered
Trademark (See below). While you or I may not agree with those laws
related to Trademarks, they are what they are. Moreover, the IGDA
represents the individuals who make games, not the companies that make
them. So, although no one is more committed to independent developers
than I am, this is a legal dispute between two companies regarding an
alleged Trademark infringement. So, while I anyone’s effort to fight
for the little guy, these matters are for the court of law, not for a
court of public opinion.
I think this matter is obviously a
bit more complex the article presented it. As someone who has litigated
intellectual property cases, I can tell you that these cases are never
as simple as they might seem to a lay person, especially when one only
has access to one side of the story. I suspect that if you had spend 20
odd years building a Trademark to brand your studio and games, and paid
to have a Trademark registered, you might also feel compelled to
enforce your trade name. BTW, if you do not enforce your Trademark, you
may lose it. So you may want to also take that into account in your
analysis!
This is hardly a matter for the IGDA either…Board
members do not lose their legal rights when elected to the Board. I
personally do not think that lobbying the IGDA to intervene or even
take sides in a legitimate legal disputes not the right approach, even
if one of the parties to that dispute is a member of the BoD!. If Tim’s
position is correct (and I do not have enough information to determine
that issue one way of the other) you are recommending that the IGDA
support a someone who violated the U.S Lanham Act and infringed a legal and enforceable Trademark.
That’s just nutty!
In any case, I do not see how
Tim L. vigorously enforcing his legal rights as contrary to the code of
ethics in any way.
Again, I am speaking now for myself and
NOT on behalf of the IGDA or as an IGDA Board member. But as me, Tom
Buscaglia, The Game Attorney.
Tom B
************’
Word Mark EDGE
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer
game software, computer game programs, video game software, video game
programs, computer game software that may be downloaded from a global
computer network, video game software that may be downloaded from a
global computer network, computer game cartridges to be used in
computer game machines adapted for use with television receivers, video
game cartridges, computers, computer accessories, plug-in boards,
peripheral devices, flash cards, set-top boxes, cable modems, mobile
game devices, handheld game devices, video game consoles, video game
assessories, video game peripherals, augmented reality games, virtual
reality games, games designed for use with mobile entertainment
devices. FIRST USE: 19840601. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19840601
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78807479
Filing Date February 5, 2006
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) EDGE GAMES, INC. CORPORATION 530 SOUTH LAKE AVENUE #171 PASADENA CALIFORNIA 91101
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Prior Registrations 1853705;2219837;7502940
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
——————————————————————————–
|
The point is that all the information taken together presents a picture that could be considered morally questionable and reflects poorly on the IGDA and its board of directors. Especially since the IGDA is supposed to be on the side of the independent developer.
Edge Games is obviously a company founded solely to exploit copyright law and I don't think the IGDA should be associated with shady business dealings of this sort.
I think the most interesting thing to do in this situation is to compare this response to Simon's article:
Simon's article links to various legal proceedings and shows not just some but much diligence. Simon does not encourage taking any legal action or even asking the IGDA to take any stance on this issue. He does encourage interested parties to ask questions.
Tom's response includes attacking Simon as a journalist and the claim that board members' professional behavior has no bearing on their position as the figureheads of the largest professional games-related organization on earth, which is dubious if legally sound. I.e. "stop asking questions."
It's really hard to look at this without some bias, given Simon's record of service to the industry and to independent developers in particular.
To quote: "although no one is more committed to independent developers than I am..." Simon is definitely more committed to independent developers than you are, Tom, and demonstrably so. Did YOU invent the IGS?
No?
That said, I do think that prior to posting his piece that Simon should have contacted both Tim and the IGDA for their side of the story, and he did not. That was my main point. And I stand by it.
A_Langdell_Capps_and_quotPolicingquot_the_Board.php
So given how obvious and proven Tim's misrepresentations are then the board should be united and unanimous in calling for Tim's immediate resignation. Any board member who now supports Tim also cannot in good conscience stay on the board.