Kicking off Kotaku's review of 2009 are the headlines that generated the most heat, if not light, from the preceding year. The conflicts fracture along familiar faultlines - legal claims; violence and in-game content; marketing and etc. And by no means is this an exhaustive list. There were plenty of other decisions, indecisions, gaffes, gambits and shrewd calls made by the games industry - a dynamic capitalist enterprise, of course - and we invite you to continue the discussion of them in our comments.

Knuckleheaded
EA's press promo for Godfather II backfires when the brass knuckles it sends (including a pair to Crecente) turn out to be illegal in many of the states to which they are shipped (including Colorado). It's also illegal to ship them in California, where EA is based. EA asks for all of the knuckles back. Godfather II then backfires when the game sucks.

One Fallujah the Cuckoo's Nest
Konami tiptoed up to the "too soon?" line by announcing "Six Days in Fallujah," a combat FPS based on the deadly 2006 American operation to pacify the region in Iraq. Then developer Atomic Games took a flying leap over the line by mentioning it had consulted with insurgents on the game's initial design. By the end of the month, Konami dropped the project like it was a hot, nuclear-waste infused pop-tart. Atomic continued to insist the project was alive, while shopping it to other publishers. But by the end of the year, Atomic president Peter Tamte seemed to have gotten further with his idea for a "family-friendly" game about Marines pacifying Beirut, instead. That one is scheduled for a January 2010 release. Apparently, in video games, it's all about location, location, location. [Thanks to commenter ashleyillman001 for reminding us of this one.]

Our Legal Team Goes to 11
Activision's lawyers file a face-melting suit against studio Double Fine over Brütal Legend, whose publishing shifted over from Activision to Electronic Arts earlier in the year. Activision seeks to halt the game's release on grounds that Double Fine missed a key deadline when it was accountable to Activision. EA, not sued, still tells Activision STFU, and that they're just jealous in the manner of "a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy." Double Fine countersues, alleging Activision was trying to kill off Brütal Legend, seeing it as a threat to Guitar Hero. Ultimately, the two sides settle out of court, and Brütal Legend makes its declared release day.

Turn Out the Lights, the LAN Party's Over
StarCraft is a longtime staple of LAN parties, but that tradition will end with StarCraft II. In late June, Blizzard tells Kotaku that the title will not support local area network gaming, and will instead steer players over to "our upgraded Battle.net service." One of the reasons given is that it cuts down on piracy. Predictably, Starcraft enthusiasts head to the Batpoles to draft a petition. Instead of making fist-shaking demands and threatening boycotts, what comes out is more of a polite "please?" The effort has gathered 244,510 signatures to date. But at Blizzcon, executive v.p. of game design Rob Pardo tells Fahey that "Only from the press," is Blizzard still taking flak for the decision. "Everyone else has accepted it."

Edgy Edged Edginess over Edge
Tim Langdell had a terrible reputation within the games industry prior to this year, but his pissing contest with Mobigame over the word "Edge" represents a coming out party. Langdell, excoriated for his aggressive defense of the trademark "Edge," which he registered years ago, has Mobigame's acclaimed title for the iPhone removed from the iTunes App Store in May. The controversy and terrible publicity result in Langdell's resignation from the board of the International Game Developers Association, and ultimately Electronic Arts suing to cancel Langdell's trademarks, over a dispute regarding 2008's Mirror's Edge. Mobigame's game resurfaces as "Mobigame by Edge" later in the year.

Who Sold Out Whom?
At E3 2009, Valve's announcement of Left 4 Dead 2 ignites feelings of betrayal and marginalization in some who bought the original Left 4 Dead barely seven months before. Immediately a boycott group forms on the Steam forums, vowing not to buy or play the new game. Some 10,000 people join it in the first few days. Stern criticisms include: "The fiddle-based horde music is extremely disliked, though the differently orchestrated music is otherwise welcome." In September, Valve shrewdly co-opts the boycott's leadership, flying two of its organizers to Valve HQ to get some hands-on time with Left 4 Dead 2. Both immediately sing its praises. On launch day in November, most in the boycott stick to their guns, but many cave in and play anyway.

Dante's Fiasco(es)
The Dante's Inferno marketing team was apparently on a rampage to execute the most boneheaded campaign of any title in 2009. After sending a bunch of fake religious zealots to E3 to protest the game there, pissing off real religious zealots with the stereotype, they cook up the "Sin to Win" whopper of Comic-Con. Basically, Comic-Con goers were encouraged to "commit acts of lust" by having their photos taken with booth babes, then submit the photos for judgment and a chance to win a "sinful night with two hot girls," plus other amenities. Outrage catches on, and the Dante's Inferno team apologizes. A real booth babe rips them a new one, and a gay man wins a runner-up prize for submitting his picture with a "booth bear."

Made from Scratch
It's a story that combines 2009's trendiest douche moves - lawsuits, and layoffs. In April, Activision is sued by publisher Genius Products and peripheral maker Numark Industries over its acquisition of 7 Studios, conveniently and coincidentally developing a rival game to Activision's own DJ Hero. A court in L.A. orders Activision to give over all the code from the competing title - Scratch: The Ultimate DJ. The two sides settle on a cash-for-code prisoner exchange, and Scratch is rebooked for an early 2010 release. DJ Hero, despite reasonably good reviews and a full-bore marketing campaign, disappoints in sales, which doesn't look good for Scratch next year. Finally, once 7 Studios is no longer useful to this corporate psychodrama, Activision lays off half of its workforce.

Sambo No Amigo
Scribblenauts, the wildly creative DS hit developed by 5th Cell, encounters an unintentional problem with racial sensitivity when writing the word "sambo" creates a watermelon on the screen. In the minor video games market known as the United States, both are overtly racist images with a history going back decades. 5th Cell points out the game is developed for multiple countries and languages, and that the watermelon summoned is in fact a "fig-leafed gourd," by which it is apparently known as "sambo" in Spanish. The game's publisher, Warner Bros. Interactive issues a more comprehensive apology, expressing deep regret for the word's inclusion. Internet tough-guy commenters who don't see what the trouble is with the word "sambo" are invited to say it around their black friends. None has any.

Shut Your Hole
Courtney Love, wife of self-martyred pop star Kurt Cobain, announces via Twitter she's gonna "sue the shit out of Activision," over its insensitive use of her hubby's likeness in Guitar Hero 5 - which includes his avatar singing songs not performed by Nirvana, which means in someone else's voice. Activision's response is all, "Um, RTFA," and points to the contract she in fact signed granting the use of Cobain's likeness as a "fully playable character." Jon Bon Jovi backs Love, saying he nothankyou.jpg'd Activision's offer of an appearance in the same game. Then Gwen Stefani, not one to be out-dramaqueened, and her band No Doubt file a lawsuit similar to Love's. Activision returns fire, suing No Doubt for failure to perform due diligence and breach of contract. Congratulations, everyone now looks bad.

A Lack of Dedication
In October, Infinity Ward community manager Robert Bowling goes on a podcast with hardcore Modern Warfare fans and announces the creation of the matchmaking service IWNet. You then hear the gears turning in the podcast hosts' heads: But ... that ... means the end of ... dedicated servers ... right? Right. Immediately, petitions and boycotts are announced, gathering some 20,000 signatures in the first day. Infinity Ward sticks to its claim that IWNet will be an improvement. By launch day, the boycott is effectively over.

Video About Gamers' Insensitivity Not Acceptable
Philadelphia Phillies pitcher - and noted Modern Warfare enthusiast - Cole Hamels (pictured) reminds us that "grenades are for pussies," in a faux-public service announcement brought to you by "Fight Against Grenade Spam." That, of course, makes the acronym FAGS and all, or at least partial, hell breaks loose. Infinity Ward, the producer of the video, is upbraided not so much for a veiled homophobic slur, but for a clip that portrays the game's community as dominated by uber-macho, insult-spewing assclowns. Infinity Ward removes the video the next day.

No Russian Was Harmed in the Making
Leaked gameplay footage of Modern Warfare 2 shows that players will - in the guise of an undercover mission - join terrorists as they invade an airport, kill and commit atrocities against civilians. Activision immediately points out the mission is skippable, both before it begins and at any point during it, and is "designed to evoke the atrocities of terrorism." The game, already classified for sale in Australia, is the subject of brief demands to have it reclassified and effectively banned, but they go nowhere. The sequence is removed from versions sold in Russia, and modified in the Japanese and German versions so that players shooting any civilians are given a "game over" screen. The Japanese version courts additional controversy when the mistranslation of "Remember, no Russian," - instructions to the terrorists not to speak in that language - comes out as "Kill ‘em, the Russians." In the United States, Totilo goes on MSNBC to plead for national calm and mainstream outrage fails to materialize.Modern Warfare 2 goes on to sell more than 4.7 million copies in the North America and the U.K. - on the day of its release.

Frumps on the Barbie
Australia's lack of an R18+ classification for video games comes back to the fore when Left 4 Dead 2 is refused classification by the nation's Review Board. Valve's reaction is, in order, to be "pretty bummed," then to appeal the refused classification and then finally publish a spitefully power-sanitized version just for Australia, which might as well have been titled Imagine: Zombiez.

Frumps on the Barbie II or: Australians vs. Predator
Luke attempts to set us all straight on what is and what ain't banning in Australia. But the country's image, that it's a nation of pantywaists tenderly sensitive to depictions of certain manly acts - such as decapitations - persists. And it seems to be having a cumulative effect. Aliens vs. Predator, at first banned - oops, I mean, refused classification - is reconsidered and then, amazingly, classified MA15+ making it good for sale. Then the government asks for public input on changes to the country's game ratings system. Finally Luke, waking up today and reading this last paragraph, bludgeons me to death with a didgeridoo, over the Internet, the end.

Mobigame rebranded the game in the United States and United Kingdom markets specifically to neutralize any claim Tim Langdell's Edge Games - notorious for challenging any use of the word "Edge" by video game developers - might make against the game. A news release from Mobigame stressed that no agreement or settlement had been reached with Langdell.

The game was originally available as EDGE on the App Store in the U.S. and U.K. from March to about May. Its takedown was largely attributed to Langdell, although he says Mobigame itself asked Apple to remove the application in light of the legal dispute.

"We renamed to 'Edge by Mobigame' for the U.S and the U.K market only to have the approval from Apple (and we have it now)," Mobigame's David Papazian told Kotaku. "On the legal side, he cannot claim anything against "Edge by Mobigame" and Apple knows that, so we hope everything will be alright now."

Papazian expressed confidence that Electronic Arts will prevail in its recent appeal for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel five Edge-related trademarks held by Langdell, on grounds they both have been abandoned and were fraudulently obtained. EA's suit arises from a dispute over its 2008 title "Mirror's Edge." Langdell vehemently disputes EA's claims.

Langdell, at the center of many controversies over the years regarding trademark rights to the word "Edge", has been involved in a similar dispute with Electronic Arts since 2007 concerning its title "Mirror's Edge." On Sept. 11, EA filed a petition with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to wipe out five trademarks involved in the case, saying they have been threatened by Langdell for a year over the distribution of Mirror's Edge.

"EA has filed a complaint to put an end to legal threats over a trademark issue related to our game, Mirror's Edge," company spokesman Jeff Brown said Tuesday. "While this seems like a small issue for EA, we think that filing the complaint is the right thing to do for the developer community."

Langdell, in a statement to Kotaku, called Electronic Arts' petition "a desperate attempt by EA to see if they can win the right to use Mirror's Edge by forcibly removing Edge's legitimate rights to Edge." Langdell pointed to a USPTO ruling in his favor, from August 2008, which found EA's registration of the trademark "Mirror's Edge" had been granted in error, and the company's subsequent abandonment of the mark - made official Sept. 8 - "stands as an acceptance of Edge's rights."

The USPTO database does list the trademark "Mirror's Edge" as "abandoned" as of Sept. 8, 2009. When asked about the timing of EA's filing, Brown, the spokesman, said only that the company had been unsuccessful in its yearlong attempt to resolve the dispute, and "we feel it is important to establish the rights of developers in this situation. So we filed the petition to cancel those marks."

Brown also declined to comment when asked if the petition was at all related to any upcoming product announcements using the word "Edge." Nor would he specify how negotiations with Langdell broke down.

Over the years, Langdell has been accused of heavy-handed behavior against developers who wittingly or unwittingly use the word "Edge", which he trademarked years ago for use in video games, and a slew of other associated products since then. In addition to the disagreement with EA, Langdell has been involved in a bitter dispute with Mobigame, whose iPhone game EDGE has appeared on the iTunes App Store and was later removed when he challenged Mobigame's usage of the title.

The notoriety surrounding this action in large part led to a campaign to have Langdell removed from the board of directors of the International Game Developers Association. Langdell voluntarily quit the board last month rather than face a removal vote.

"A lot of small developers who are faced with this situation settle claims because they don't know how, or can't afford to fight for their rights," said Brown, the EA spokesman. "We hope that as a result of this action, other developers will be less intimidated by unwarranted legal threats."

But Langdell counters that EA is trying to poison sentiment against his company, and that its accusations "sound like comments intended to sway indie game news reporters' opinion and deflect you away from the obvious fact that it is EA [that] indie developers need to be protected from."

In the filing, Electronic Arts alleges that Langdell has effectively abandoned these trademarks through disuse. While Langdell vigorously states his company is actively involved in the development of games, both Mobygames and this analysis say the last game published by Edge Games was in 1990.

Edge Games' Web site says it is developing four multiplatform titles, one of which "Racers," was released on Sept. 9. "Clearly, Edge has not abandoned its trademark and that allegation is obviously destined to fail," Langdell told Kotaku. Langdell's statement says Edge's games "are on general sale at this time as they have been at all times over the past many years."

Significantly, EA also alleges that Langdell fraudulently obtained the trademark registrations, filing out-of-date and even falsified specimens to obtain them. EA alleges two registrations, dated 1996 and 2006, used box covers from games published in 1989 and 1990 and were not examples of a mark used in commerce, especially as the 1990 game was developed for the since-discontinued Commodore Amiga. Another 2009 registration submitted an Edge mark used on the 1986 game Bobby Bearing, saying that game had been in use "continuously over the past five years," on mobile phones. EA claims that is false.

EA says two other registrations, in 2004 and 2005, were obtained by submitting a nonexistent magazine cover in one case, and a Hulk comic book published in the 1990s in another. (Langdell claims to have licensed trademarks to the two publications.)

Langdell flatly denied that Edge ever committed fraud in applying for its U.S. trademarks.

Langdell has also said that Mobigame told him, in an email published here, that it and Electronic Arts had formed some sort of partnership, to what end he did not say. In a lengthy public statement published last August, Langdeel seems to imply that EA and Mobigame might be working together "to seek to undermine our rights in EDGE," to get out of an agreement Langdell says Edge and EA had reached earlier.

Brown, the EA spokesman, said that to his knowledge EA has no formal relationship with Mobigame. A request for comment left with Mobigame was not answered as of publication time. Mobigame replied to Kotaku that, in May, it had been working on a video game project unrelated to EDGE, or any game involved in this dispute, licensed by a British company that was in negotiations with Electronic Arts to publish it. Those negotiations have since ended, Mobigame's David Papazian said.

According to a notice sent by the USPTO, Langdell has until Oct. 27 to respond to EA's petition. Should the matter proceed to trial, that will begin in the summer of 2010.

Electronic Arts' filing may be downloaded here, in .pdf form.

Langdell, for his part, accuses EA of playing the bully in this matter.

"The key dispute for the past two to three years ... has always been between the multinational conglomerate EA and Edge fighting for its rights as a relatively small indie developer up against the giant corporate bully, EA," Langdell wrote. "It is a great pity that another fellow indie developer, Mobigame, got caught in the crossfire, but at least EA are now out in the open with their fight, now openly trying to stifle the legitimate rights of indie developers."

The IGDA announced Langdell's resignation in a brief statement this morning. In an email to Kotaku, IGDA Executive Director Joshua Caulfield said Langdell resigned voluntarily and was not asked to. Langdell provided a lengthy statement explaining his decision, the entirety of which is at the end of this story.

In his statement, Langdell says he left the board because opposition to his board membership comes from "a contingent ... who in their fanaticism will cause substantial negative press for the IGDA over the next month and place intolerable demands on the board and IGDA staff."

Late last week, the IGDA announced that a special meeting of the membership - essentially an online vote - would be held Oct. 3, the sole purpose of which was to vote on whether Langdell should be removed. Langdell had served on the board since March 1.

In his statement Langdell expressed confidence that he would survive such a vote but "my fear is that a quorum will not be attained and that consequently this vocal minority will not accept the outcome of the October 3rd meeting as bringing closure to this issue."

Langdell, who founded EDGE Games in 1979, is widely known for the aggressive defense of his long held trademark to the word "Edge" in video gaming. His latest dispute is with Mobigame, which released the iPhone/iPod Touch game EDGE in April. Their public fight has provoked heated commentary and accusations of bad faith dealings on both sides. Langdell himself has become more vocal of late, publishing a lengthy defense of his company and engaging in debates with members on the IGDA forums. The effort to remove him from the IGDA's board was begun back in July.

At the heart of Langdell's controversial public persona is the perception that his and EDGE's primary activity is litigation rather than actual development. Langdell claims EDGE has published more than 700 games, but an analysis, quoted by Eurogamer pegged the figure at 70, the most recent in 1990. EDGE's site does say it is working on four multiplatform titles at the moment.

Langdell said he would remain a full regular member of the IGDA. Caulfield, the executive director, told Kotaku that "it is my sincere hope that this issue is resolved. There are a lot of great people in the IGDA, and I hope we can get on with providing them with value for their membership."

Statement of Tim Langdell, CEO of EDGE Games, Aug. 31 2009

With the process barely started leading up to the Special Meeting announced last Friday and set to take place on October 3, it is already clear to me that despite my being confident that thinking members of the IGDA will vote for me to remain on the board for the balance of my term, there is a contingent who were involved in sending the defamatory email to all members by exploiting the IGDA email system a few weeks ago who in their fanaticism will cause substantial negative press for the IGDA over the next month and place intolerable demands on the board and IGDA staff. And while I am confident that were the needed quorum of at least 50% of the voting membership to be achieved at the Special Meeting that the vote would go in favor of my remaining on the board, my fear is that a quorum will not be attained and that consequently this vocal minority will not accept the outcome of the October 3rd meeting as bringing closure to this issue.

My great fear, then, is that this vocal minority — most of whom are not IGDA members — will continue their negative attacks on the IGDA beyond October 3, refusing to accept the outcome of my remaining on the board. It seems nearly certain they will continue to generate even more negative press for the IGDA for weeks or even months to come and persist in causing substantial drain on IGDA board volunteer and staff resources and time, which is not in the interests of either the IGDA or its membership. Especially not at this time when all key IGDA resources should be focused on the Leadership Forum, not on dealing with this issue.

Thus with the best interests of the IGDA at heart, and mindful of the unfair demand on the time of my fellow board members and our truly excellent IGDA staff, including the remarkable Joda Sapp and our incomparable new ED Joshua Caulfield, I therefore announce my decision to resign as a member of the board of the IGDA, effective immediately. I make this decision not because I have done anything wrong — on the contrary I am confident that all accusations against me were unfounded and purely intended to defame, and am confident that I have at all times acted in the best interest of the IGDA and its membership — but because I must make this decision between concluding a process that will show I did no wrong, and having that process irreparably damage the IGDA. I cannot permit the latter to happen, and this has to drive my decision today, taking priority over defending myself against these accusations to a conclusion. There are some who will take my stepping down as an admission of wrongdoing, but they are the same people who if the October 3 Special Meeting had gone ahead resulting in my remaining on the board would have refused to accept that outcome.

Last, I wish to say that the board is full of some incredible people, and you, the membership of the IGDA, are in excellent hands. For my part, I believe I made a solid contribution to the Association in my time on the board, taking on a somewhat disastrous web project which, as head of web tech these past months, I was able to bring round so that the new website should now be able to go live very shortly. I am sorry that I will not personally be overseeing the launch of the new website, but I know that this process is in the excellent hands of a colleague on the board.

I will remain an active member of the IGDA, still supporting it in any way I can as a regular member, and still serving on some fifteen SIGs; indeed my departure from the board will give me more time to devote to supporting the SIGs.

Dr. Tim Langdell, Pasadena, CA.

We've written four stories on Langdell, and sought comment without luck multiple times. The man is entitled to his say, and here it is. It's a 13-point document, making the following assertions:

• Edge never demanded money from Mobigame
• Mobigame proposed Edge give it money to use the mark "Edge"
• Edge has never acted as "trademark trolls"
• Edge acted well in the "EDGY" matter [this was the proposal to rename EDGE as EDGY]
• Mobigame has only pretended to want to change the name of its game
• Mobigame has persistently demanded Edge give up its rights to the mark "Edge"
• Mobigame has lied so as to defame Edge and its CEO Tim Langdell
• Mobigame deliberately selected EDGE as the name of its game in 2008
• How many games we have produced in the past 5 years
• Insight into the "Mirrors (by) Edge" matter
• Details of our game credits system
• "Edge of Twilight" [the matter concerning Langdell's filing of that mark this year, the name of a game under development by Fuzzyeyes since 2007].
• False accusations against Edge

One thing, as Kotaku is mentioned in the "Edge of Twilight" portion of this statement. Fuzzyeyes' CEO did in fact release a statement on July 23 (nearly two weeks after the story ran) saying any potential disputes between them had been amicably resolved. I have updated the July 11 story to reflect the statement of Fuzzyeyes' CEO.

Public Statement Regarding Mobigame [The EDGE Studios]

Yesterday's email, listed in the reply-to as from the spoofed "Concerned_Members_of_the_IGDA@IGDA.org" address, and was signed "Concerned Members of the IGDA." It documented Langdell's history of suing and harassing game developers - his latest target is Mobigames - who use the word "Edge" anywhere in their products, a word he trademarked some two decades ago. The email also criticized Langdell for making "gross misrepresentations" of both the IGDA's influence and his position on its board.

It concluded by asking recipients to vote in a petition held at a non-IGDA site. The link was a petition brought up last July on the same subject. Some in the IGDA are trying to find a way to get the organization at large to officially consider Langdell's removal from the board.

This morning, the IGDA emailed its members to distance itself from the e-mail and the movement behind it.

Dear Members,

Recently an email went out that appeared to have originated from IGDA. The return address of this email appeared as: "Concerned_Members_of_the_IGDA@IGDA.org."

That email address was spoofed and the communication was not an official IGDA communication. We are currently reviewing the methods by which it was sent to see if this was sent out by people ignorant of proper use of the IGDA website or if there was malicious actions involved. We are also reviewing the method by which your email addresses were obtained and if that was done ethically or not. It is my hope that this was done by someone simply overzealous about their cause and not for destructive reasons.

Please be aware IGDA was not responsible for this email and does not have anything to do with the content or the links provided. You should read and use such links at your own risk.

We will investigate this issue and provide you with information on our findings as they are confirmed.

Thank you,

Joshua Caulfield
Executive Director
IGDA

I emailed the petition's creator, IGDA member Michael Lubker, to ask if the mailing was his doing. Lubker said he was not involved. Asked if this dented the anti-Langdell movement's credibility within the IGDA, Lubker said:

I am not worried that credibility or ability has been affected, if anything there have been more posts about it since the IGDA's response. However, I do feel that the IGDA is discrediting its members right to communicate freely with each other about the status of the organization.

According to the IGDA's bylaws, 10 percent of the membership can force an association-wide vote on such a question. Of course, that would presumably need to be done through some official means. And the chances of it recognizing the legitimacy of a third-party petition site definitely went down after today.

We've asked for comment from both Langdell and the IGDA. If they wish to make any, we'll update it here. Meantime, for an excellent read on Langdell's history, see this piece by Eurogamer (thanks, Morris).

Update: Tim Langdell has released a statement comprehensively defending himself in the Mobigame matter, and against other accusations leveled at him in the gaming press.

This is a little more meaningful than your average ranting internet petition. It was begun by International Game Developers Association member Michael Lubker, and is only taking signatures from IGDA members. Lubker, like many others, is repulsed by Langdell's campaign of harassment against anyone who produces a game - something Langdell has not done in 15 years - whose title or branding somehow invokes the unique word he trademarked, which is "Edge."

We've chronicled his shenanigans before, as recently as this past weekend. These aren't isolated incidents, folks. Just now he's gotten Mobigames' Edge, which brought this mess back into the public consciousness in May, re-yanked from the iTunes App store. Moreover, Langdell has alleged that Edge is somehow an infringement on his own game of 1986, something called Bobby Bearing, which is itself a ripoff of Marble Madness.

Back to the IGDA: In his argument, Corvus cites the relevant portion of the bylaws in his argument for Langdell's removal. Basically, they need 10 percent of the membership to demand a vote on the removal of Langdell from the board of directors. I've gotten word that this movement was afoot already, but the anti-Langdell side was having difficulty getting a membership mailing list from the IGDA. I'm not sure what the leadership's posture would be toward a petition hosted on a third-party site, whose only means of verification is a self-entered membership number.

But if anything, it continues to force the issue on Langdell's obnoxious behavior and the embarrassing association the IGDA has with this man. More than a few others have told me no one really paid any attention to the voting on the board membership in the past; if nothing else, maybe people will now.

Update: From Cult of Mac's Craig Grannell comes word that Mobigames' Papazian has talked with Bobby Bearing's actual developers, Robert and Trevor Figgins, and they claim they retain the rights to the game. Langdell, they assert, was just the publisher. Further, those two are said to believe that Mobigames' Edge is not a game similar to Bobby Bearing. If this is true, it makes Langdell's claim even more despicable, although we are talking about a contract they had (if any) more than 20 years ago, at a time when such things were a lot less formal than they are now.

IGDA Forums - Call for the Removal of Tim Langdell [IGDA]

In case you missed our discussion of Langdell's history on May 30, he's a onetime developer whose studio, Edge Games, was founded in the 1980s but hasn't produced an actual game in 15 years. Its principal output seems to be the filing of trademark claims against developers unfortunate enough to use the word "edge" in a game title, in any form, without consulting him. Mobigames' EDGE was the latest victim, being removed from the iTunes store while they negotiated with Langdell. (EDGE is now back up on the store).

Sure, someone with registered trademarks has every right to protect it - especially if not defending it constitutes abandonment of the mark. That doesn't mean Langdell's behavior here doesn't depict him as a cretinous parasite. Edge of Twilight, a steampunk hack-n-slasher, has been discussed for more than two years. I guess now, as it looks like it might see a release for PC, PS3 and 360 this year. Langdell wants a cut of the action. Remember, this is a guy who bills himself as a cofounder of the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences, and who is in fact on the board of the International Game Developers Association.

You can see the PTO filing here. Edge of Twilight is being published by SouthPeak Games. Perhaps Langdell is doing something similar to the ridiculous "MIRRORS, a game by EDGE" troll his site put up - presumably to bait Electronic Arts into suing him so he could countersue back on the trademark claim to the word.

And while the stylized E on Edge of Twilight's logo might seem similar to other marks Langdell has claimed, his application is claiming a mark that "consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font, style, size, or color." In other words, just the words themselves, not any stylized version of the word "edge."

I don't know the law; I don't pretend to. But I think it's fair to say his "studio's" major contribution to games development is only to force actual developers to give him money if they think about using a word that dates back to the 12th century. I've emailed the address listed on the PTO filing, in case he wants to comment. Don't hold your breath.

Update: On July 23, the CEO of Fuzzyeyes released this statement:

"Edge of Twilight proceeds with title unchanged"

FUZZYEYES approached EDGE Games several months ago, with the intent to resolve any issues arising out of both companies use of the mark "EDGE." Fuzzyeyes, developer of the game titled "Edge of Twilight," sought to address any potential trademark conflicts. Through amicable negotiations, Fuzzyeyes and Edge Games have arrived at a satisfactory arrangement that addresses the concerns of both parties. This arrangement allows the highly anticipated Edge of Twilight to proceed with its title unchanged, and without infringement on any trademarks held by Edge Games.

Lu, Wei-Yao
CEO of FUZZYEYES

US Serial No: 77748665 [US Patent and Trademark Office, thanks to reader Anonymous]
Edge of Twilight [Site]

You may recall EDGE, Mobigames' outstanding and award-winning title for the iPhone and iPod Touch. It has been removed from the U.S. and U.K. Apple Store because of a trademark claim made by Tim Langdell, who created value-bin studio EDGE Games about a hundred years ago and claims to have made 180 games, but is better known for bullying actual game makers who use the word "edge" in any form.

Says Mobigame's David Papazian (to Fingergaming): "If you already asked why Soul Edge (the Namco game) was called Soul Blade and later Soulcalibur in the US, you have your answer."

Papazian says he is in "negotiations" with Langdell, who claims to own the worldwide trademark to all things EDGE. Sure it may be a cheap shot to denigrate EDGE Games "best known" efforts - "Garfield: Big Fat Hairy Deal" and "Snoopy: The Case of the Missing Blanket." But when the company's most recent game was in 1994, its claim to be a games developer is fast losing credibility, if it's not gone already.

It beggars the imagination that a judge would find brand confusion here, in the title of a mobile game produced in 2009 versus the name of a company that hasn't done shit in 15 years except squat on a very common word. You want to see brand confusion? You want trademark infringement? How about this, from EDGE Games' web site itself:

If I had the email address of Electronic Arts' legal division I'd send them that. Update: The more I think about it, Langdell probably pulled this trademark claim nonsense with Electronic Arts, who laughed at him, and/or he put up that flash video to thumb his nose at them in hopes they would sue him, so he could get the claim in front of a judge that way, rather than as the plaintiff. That's probably also why the Edge logo rips off Edge Magazine. This is all pure speculation on my part.

Another thing that some might find interesting: He's a GDC speaker! Actually, he participated in roundtables, which usually involve groups of three, not a single speaker and are quite a different thing from lectures. But at GDC he's held forth on topics such as: "Who Controls a Game's IP and Who Reaps the Financial Benefit?" Tim Langdell does! Especially if it's your game. He also claims to have cofounded the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences. At least that's according to an edit his wife made to the AIAS' Wikipedia entry about a year ago. Citation, uh, needed.

He is, however, a member of the board of directors of the International Game Developers Association. I wonder what the IGDA and the AIAS have to say about their association with someone who no longer, in fact, creates any games - except for ripping off the name of a well known release - and engages in such disgusting harassment of those who do.

Tim Langdell: The EDGE of Insanity? [The Independent Gaming Source]