« 3 Days, 5 Books, Limitless Community | Home | Monday Meme: My Life According to Tom Waits »
It’s Fun to Stay at the IGDA
By Corvus | July 17, 2009
For the purposed of this post I’m going to assume you have at least some familiarity with the IGDA, and Tim Langdell.
In the interest of full transparency– I am an independent contractor who provides narrative design consulting. My primary source of income at this point is from EA/Pogo who merely skims the surface of my skills to write monthly copy for a jigsaw puzzle games. I am working on an IP of my own called the HoneyComb Engine, which is a participatory storytelling system that I plan on expanding into a series of video games at some point. I am also on the executive board of the IGDA Writing SIG.
Tim Langell is the inspiration for this post, but he is not the point of it. The point of this post is far larger than Tim Langdell. The point of the post is you, me, every single other registered member of the IGDA, and every developer who does, or wishes to, work in the industry.
Whether you agree with the views I’m about to put forth or not, I hope you feel inspired to talk, or even argue, about the topics I’m going to brush against with everyone you work with, socialize with, attend IGDA meetings with, etc. Not because I’m making them, but because they are vital to the future of the IGDA.
My feelings about Tim Langdell are of little consequence here, but I do feel like emphasizing that I feel calling his actions “trademark protection” is rather like claiming the aristocracy went on fox hunts to protect the hen house. It may be legal, but to base the financial success of your studio on predatory IP manipulation is ass-hattery of the worst degree. The fact that Langdell’s studio is surviving in this economy without having released a game in well over a decade is astounding. That it can even afford to litagate over the use of the word ‘EDGE’ when the big publishers are closing entire studios rather than suffer thinner-than-average profit margins is a danger to every single developer-independent or affiliated.
And the fact that the IGDA Board released a “well, it’s legal,” statement in response to the call for Tim Langdell’s removal from the board makes them look like clumsy stooges at best, and sinister ass-hats in their own right at worst. I say this and I like, or at least respect, a great many people on the IGDA board. They are volunteers who genuinely try and work in the best interest of the organization as they see it. In fact, and I state this with absolute certainty, the outcry over Langdell has been heard by the board and the IGDA’s new Executive Directory, Joshua Caulfield. And I mean we’ve been heard in a meaningful way, not a “slam the window to shut out the noise way.”
Okay. What can we do? The forum threads and public petitions haven’t done any good. We feel, perhaps, marginalized, not taken seriously, and more than a little angry.
I went to the board, and all the SIG leaders, and expressed my concern that the handling of this issue would result in a massive defection of the membership. Many studios that once paid large sums to cover memberships for all their employees have trimmed those dues from their budgets. Membership dues, less than $50 per year per member, are mostly what we have left. We have to do something, I claimed, to recognize the importance of the concerns of the membership. We have realize that the membership are, in effect, our bosses. I also specifically asked how to go about initiating an official call for the removal of a board member.
And I got my answer from a board member–there really isn’t a process for doing this.
Hrm. Really? Reading the Bylaws, I saw that this is a patent falsehood, or perhaps just an inability to connect A to B to C. Because the bylaws specifically and directly provide us, the membership, with the ability to vote to remove any board member from office:
Section 8. Removal. Any director may be removed from such office, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the voting members of the Corporation at any regular or special meeting of the members called expressly for that purpose. In addition, the Board of Directors may declare vacant the office of any Director who fails or ceases to meet any required qualification that was in effect at the beginning of that Director’s current term of office.
Furthermore, in Section 3, where our rights as members are listed:
Section 3. Voting Rights. Each entitled member shall have one vote. No member shall be entitled to cumulate votes. The members shall be entitled to vote on the following matters:
- The election of directors;
- The disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of the Corporation; and
- The merger or dissolution of the Corporation.
Only individual members in good standing shall have the right to vote on these, and any such other issues as the Board may choose to bring before the members.
And it Section 4 it states:
Special meetings of the members may be called by the Chair of the Board or upon the request of ten (10) percent of the voting members.
So, if we want to vote Tim Langdell off the board, we need to collect 1,400 yes votes in this petition: Click Here to Sign the Petition. This will compel them to call a special vote of the membership for the removal of Tim Langdell. It is vitally important that everyone take this preliminary vote seriously–members and non-members alike. Every single record must contain a valid membership number and you must not vote more than once.
You’ll notice, I’ve included a “no” vote. I know members who do not wish to vote Tim Langdell off the board. If 10% of the IGDA membership is dead against this, it’s only fair they have a voice too.
So what do we do if we’re not heard? Or, if we’re outvoted? Derek Yu would have us quit the IGDA and focus on local community. While I think focusing on local indie communities is an excellent idea, not everyone has local community. And, in my personal experience, the IGDA can be a remarkably powerful and transformative organization. My own career has been greatly aided by my involvement with the IGDA.
That isn’t to say I don’t have my frustrations, I do. And some days I just have to walk away. But by and large, professional organizations are what you put into them. Sit back and expect them to move the world for you, but volunteer none of your own time to its governance, and you’ll find I have little patience for your perspective on Tim Langdell’s removal–pro or con.
So, I suggest, we need to get more involved. We need to work to turn the IGDA into something we’re proud to be a part of. Something more than the host of an annual GDC party, or a means of getting $50 off our GDC admission.
And we need to reform the election process. We currently vote on candidates with very little knowledge about them. I will be working to launch an initiative within the Writing SIG to research and interview the candidates. But again, we can’t rely on one initiative to uncover it all. We’ll need your help. We need to ensure that we don’t vote for people who don’t actually represent our ideals, or goals, or our needs.
But if you don’t feel it’s worth it–that the IGDA has not and will not ever truly represent you–I do honestly understand. But I also believe that this doesn’t need to be true. So next month, August, I will be hosting at least one virtual round table with Darius Kazemi and a handful of indie developers. I will make it available as a podcast here on my blog. If any of them will talk to me after today, I may try and get a current member of the IGDA Board of Directors to join us as well. The topic will be a question Darius asked me to answer a few weeks ago–What Can the IGDA Do For Indies?
I’ll be putting out a call for questions in advance of recording that podcast, so keep an eye on the blog…
Tagged:igda, indies, tim langdell. | 57 Comments »
July 17th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
So regardless of whether or not I feel Tim should be removed (surprisingly, I’m still torn on the issue), I do believe it should come to a vote of the membership.
That said, in order to actually remove Tim, do you need a majority of the membership to vote yes, or a majority of those who vote, or a a quorum + a majority of those who vote. We can’t get a quorum to put people in to the director position, I’ll be surprised if we can get one to remove one.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Well, if we can’t get a quorum then perhaps the membership isn’t as involved or interested as it needs to be and walking away to let it wither would be the best option.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Thank you for this work and effort. I’m not a member of the IGDA (which is why I’ve stayed out of this situation), but I do see the potential such an organisation has and the harm such events can cause there. Something really does need to be done.
One question though… What if the board decide ‘not’ to hold a special meeting? I mean what if they choose to just ignore the call?
July 17th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I’m sure the indies at the indiereboot group would be interested in participating in the podcast… please post there about it!
~M
July 17th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
They are required by the bylaws to do so. So if they refuse, any pretense they serve the membership will be completely removed and there will be no doubt about the future of the organization.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Thanks for doing this Corvus. It’s really appalling the way this whole thing has developed.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
That really is a badly worded petition. The meeting is not called to remove Tim Langdell. The meeting is simply called to discuss and vote on removing Tim Langdell. Even with a meeting called, the resulting vote can still be in Tim’s favour
July 17th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Here here!
All of my feelings on the matter aside, (yes, I have them, will probably have to grind out a blog on the subject later) I’m glad to see that SOMETHING will force the issue, and cause either a change in the role of the leadership of the IGDA, or almost entirely KO its credibility in one shot.
As someone who attends GDC, I joined the IGDA originally for no reason other than it saved me $2 total on my GDC ticket. I’ve since found it helpful as a networking tool, particularly various SIGs, but precious little in the way of tools to assist someone fresh out of college (when I joined) to break into an extremely incestuous industry.
Possibly this reflects my lack of knowledge of an appropriate way to utilitze the tools that the IGDA provides, but doesn’t that say something by itself?
Tim Langdell, of course, has nothing to do with the ability of the IGDA to assist small time developers (other than perhaps their unwillingness to rein him in, but I promised I wouldn’t editorialize), but I think (or at least I hope) its going to turn into is a call for a slightly different, more involved IGDA.
I seemed to get that from your post, Corvus. Is it wishful thinking on my part? Or are other people crossing their fingers too?
July 17th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Thanks for putting up the petition. I was about to do the same myself but you’ve saved me the trouble. I’ll be sure to publicise this as widely as I’m able.
Is there a way to get the status of this petition so we can monitor its progress?
July 17th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
@William I refrained from saying,”I want my IGDA back,” because I’m not sure if it ever was actually any different than it is now. But I do want A) to be actively involved and B) proud of my involvement.
It’s more important to me in all this that the result is more involved members than that we see through our agenda of booting Tim.
But don’t get me wrong. I want to boot Tim.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
@Paul I’ll post regular updates on Twitter & semi-regular updates here in the comments.
http://www.twitter.com/CorvusE
July 17th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I will retweet you.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Thanks again. One more quick question, can you verify that you are using the Annual Pro account with Survey Monkey?
July 17th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Paul, I do have a Pro account that I specifically opened for this one survey and will close once we have the votes.
At the moment there have been 170 pages views of this post, but only 21 votes: 20 for, 1 against.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
http://www.tigsource.com/pages/edge-games
(for those who have no idea what this is about, might want to add it to your post as an FYI)
July 17th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
@Michael. Thanks, but I do provide a link to the latest TIGSource article at the very top of the post.
July 17th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I’ll be happy to participate in the discussion with Darius so count me in, subject only to my summer schedule.
Also, I applaud your efforts here. As one who contributes a great deal of time and effort into the IGD, if this whole mess serves to engage a membership that is in large part pretty much apathetic, that’s great. And if it also serves to educate developers about the realities of Intellectual Property law in the process well, so much the better.
Tom B
July 17th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I’ll be happy to participate in the discussion with Darius so count me in, subject only to my summer schedule.
Also, I applaud your efforts here. As one who contributes a great deal of time and effort into the IGDA, if this whole mess serves to engage a membership that is in large part pretty much apathetic, that’s great. And if it also serves to educate developers about the realities of Intellectual Property law in the process well, so much the better.
Tom B
July 17th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I recently became a full member of the IGDA. I chose to forgo my student discount specifically so I could vote on this if it came up.
The cut-and-run attitude of certain members really aggravates me. There have been several posts on the IGDA forums to the extent of "I’m quitting if they don’t change this". When I read them, I can’t help but recall Jason Della Rocca’s GDC 2009 rant in which he calls out the membership for its massive lack of participation.
The IGDA is an organization that is driven by its members. Without the support of its members, it doesn’t have the power to do what its intended purpose is. I have to congratulate Corvus and everyone else taking part in this for realizing that.
…and I’m going to stop there before this becomes a blog post within a blog post.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
I’m with Jeff on this: regardless of my opinion on Tim Langdell, I do believe it should come before a member vote.
Also, you might want to include this link, where people can log in and retrieve their membership number: https://www.igda.org/myprofile/
July 17th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
http://kotaku.com/5317360/effort-begun-to-remove-trademark-troll-from-igda-board
July 17th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
I concur. I can’t sign that petition for two reasons:
1) I don’t know how much of my personal information is going to be displayed where.
2) The wording of the question is really incorrect. A vote would be held at the special meeting. The meeting isn’t necessarily going to result in the removal of Tim from the board.
Sorry Corvus. I’m very particular about what I put my name to, and this doesn’t cut it.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:04 am
Wendy, that is unfortunate. I posted my own attempt at a petition statement here:
http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=6d0977187693143b6ce25e6821071bdc&postid=227399#post227399
Would you be able to sign up to that?
July 18th, 2009 at 5:09 am
@Wendy. No worries. The personal information you enter will be presented directly to the board and not shared anywhere else. I’ve added some language to the survey to this effect, as well as stating that I do not intend to share, even with the board, what individual votes were–only the total of Yes and No votes.
As for the wording of the petition, I felt that an actual vote for the membership for Tim’s removal was implied considering that special meetings are required to call for a vote. I recognize that it would have perhaps been better to explicitly state this, but I feel it would now be worse to change it after people have signed.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
It’s a small but crucial edit I would like. You have:
a special meeting of the membership to remove Tim Langdell
But I feel strongly that it should read:
a special meeting of the membership to *vote on the removal of* Tim Langdell
However, I agree that it’s too late to change it, now that you’ve got votes. It’s just that (I gather) you’re asking members to step up and take an interest, no matter which way they would choose to vote in the end. This petition should be – not about Tim Langdell stay? Yes/No (which is what it looks like now) but – special meeting to hold a vote? Yes/No (which is what I think you meant)
You’ve made it pretty clear what your intentions were on accompanying documents – but not on the petition itself. When dealing with delicate situations like this, I believe that wording matters – a lot.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
@Wendy You are, as I will contend is often the case, correct on all counts.
However, I also contend that asking for a vote by the membership is implicit in the wording and that if the board use my lack of explicit language to wiggle out of responding to action–they’ve made their position very damn clear. What happens next remains to be seen.
Should we get there, of course. We don’t even have 1% of the membership voting yet.
VOTE COUNT
99: 98 YES/1 NO
I like what Darius has to say on the matter.
July 19th, 2009 at 4:01 am
1% in one day, when no active campaigning has been done is pretty awsome.
Spread the word the signatures will com.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:06 am
I’m going to have to make a few observations here.
Tim has owned the Edge brand for years… anyone from the UK knows the name “Edge” as it was used by a major games magazine for decades (one that it is still in print I might add). I detest the IP laws, I have run afoul of them plenty of times myself, but to suggest that Tim is somehow in the wrong for having those laws enforced is a strange kind of claim, akin to making him the scapegoat for all the intellectual property nonsense that goes on. I hate the IP laws, but they’re not Tim’s fault!
Also, I don’t see what Tim’s publishing history has to do with this. Yes, most of his work on game titles was years ago – he set his company up in 1979 for cripes sake… his company is older than most of the people proffering an opinion on this issue! :p He’s a true games industry veteran, and unsurprisingly most of his income now is in residuals. If you manage to stay in the industry for as long as Tim has, see how you feel about cases like this…
A developer – indie or otherwise – who does not check whether their name infringes on existing IP has acted irresponsibly. Whatever you may think of Tim’s actions, the developer are certainly in the wrong here as far as the law is concerned. I may not support some of the law suits that have emerged over the “Edge” brand over the years (some were extremely boneheaded), but if it’s true that Mobigames were trying to register “Edge” as a trademark in the US then of course Tim’s lawyers, as the legal representative of such a trademark, are going to step in and stop it.
I’ve written to Tim to try and persuade him to compromise on this issue, but don’t try and paint Mobigames as an innocent victim here. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, as they say.
Besides, all Mobigames have to do is change the name slightly (Edge Cube, Cube Edge, or whatever) and they are in the clear, and can benefit from all the publicity this case has already generated them.
If the IGDA has any business being involved in this issue at all, it would surely be to make it clear that game developers have a legal duty to ensure that their game names do not infringe on pre-existing intellectual property. See also Tom Buscaglia’s observations on the situation: http://gameattorney.com/blog/?p=82
I oppose this vote on Tim’s board position because I do not believe that the angry mob against him are expressing an informed opinion, and thus to push it to a vote is to risk a drumhead trial, which would be unjust.
Convince me that he will get a fair hearing, and it would be a different matter. But right now, I feel like you’re collectively turning on someone who has given many years of service to the videogames industry just because some recently formed company wanted to steal something from him. *shrugs*
And if it does go to a vote, you’ll force me to campaign on Tim’s behalf which would really annoy me because I really *hate* those IP laws. You wanna go fight the intellectual property laws, sign me up for tilting at windmills – you want to crucify Tim Langdell for using those laws, count me out.
With love and respect for you and the IGDA,
Chris.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:22 am
Footnote: Brian B. and Darius have been in touch with me since posting this to point out some of the dumb things that have happened *after* the dispute originally broke out.
I’m still trying to piece together all the facts concerning this dispute… While most of the points I raise above still stand, I can’t in any way condone some of the activities I’ve been hearing about after the dispute broke out.
I will continue to investigate… Thanks to everyone for feeding back to me on this.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:36 am
Yeah Chris, it’s not so cut-and-dried as certain parties would like to make it out to be. Adding a word to the title of the game certainly wouldn’t have helped them escape the situation either, as I am led to believe there is pending litigation over Mirror’s Edge as well.
And I have to confess that the anonymous and vaguely-threatening emails I’ve received from Edge Games have only served to underscore my impression of the situation.
Still, my primary concern over this issue is that the board did not respond to the concerns of a very vocal portion of the membership in a validating way.
In fact, a board member even intimated that there were no provisions in the bylaws for removing a board member and that we certainly couldn’t consider removing a board member without some clear malfeasance. Both of those intimations were blatantly false.
Are we to assume that the board hasn’t read the bylaws? Or that they were hoping the membership wouldn’t? Either was–this is a problem that needs addressing. If the board’s very first response was to suggest, and possibly even have the IGDA host, the initial petition–much of the furor would have been avoided.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:41 am
Forgive me for not chiming in on this issue until now, but I feared some backlash for disagreeing with the general style of this public lynching. I’ve kept my eye on this for some time, and my opinion at this point is cowardly yes, so I thank Chris B. for offering some sensitivity here.
Chris has already made a very clear argument for taking a much more moderate, thoughtful, position on the situation. Beyond that, I am concerned that this situation has transformed Tim’s copyright challenge into a political bid for restructuring the IGDA itself, which as everyone knows has suffered from a lot of internal dispute over the last couple of years.
I too hate IP laws, but I cannot imagining supporting this petition – it undermines a fellow gamer developer (a veteran whom we are supposed to support, in theory) as well as the credibility of the IGDA board itself. I think I understand some of your motivation here Corvus, but if you wish to show due diligence and responsible governing I’d like to see the petition removed. Scapegoating is an old game, and not one I’m fond of playing – the court of public opinion has a way of undermining social contracts.
If anything, this situation has deflected attention away from more important issues, such as what kind of toast I should eat this morning, and if I should put cheddar cheese on it, or go for some fruity jam instead. Not to come down too hard on the jam, but E.D. Smith really dropped the ball with this “More Fruit” label – if anything the raspberry-blueberry-blackberry mix is even more awful. I suppose I’ve already voted then: it will be a few slices of aged white cheddar. No offense, jam.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:18 am
Thanks for doing this, Corvus. It’s unfortunate that it is so hard to raise the membership out of its apathy, and depressing that it takes an event such as this to accomplish it.
Strictly speaking, I believe the vote should be to revoke Tim Langdell’s IGDA membership. He cannot serve on the board if he is not a member. While the membership could just remove him from the board, the alternative also bears discussion.
Like many of us, I have a relationship with the IGDA that I’d like to maintain, and Tim Langdell could threaten that relationship if he chose. However, to take no position on this issue merely out of fear that there might be reprisals from the board specifically against me or others they’re in a position to hard is irresponsible.
Again, thank you, Corvus.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:36 am
Chris Lepine, this is how you announce your return to the scene? By telling me how I should behave according to my own moral code? Fair governance listens to all its members and empowers them to try and effect change, not dismisses them as radical or fringe with a wave of a hand.
I should remind everyone that the petition allows for “No” votes. If the portion of the membership that does not wish to see Langdell removed hits the 10% mark then as far as I’m concerned–the membership has spoken.
Throughout history, flashpoints such as this situation have sparked movement to go on to make lasting changes.
As I’ve said, several times now, this is more about ensuring membership have a voice than Tim’s removal. I only wish that board had posted the petition first.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:48 am
Ha, hardly a return – just a quick poke and thank you ma’am.
The situation is more complex than I had realized (with the recent update from you/Chris). Hardly of a critique of you, mind. I’m just concerned that this has much more to do with IGDA’s governmental problems and less to do with Tim’s spasticity. Revolutionism has a way of biting itself on the ass in time..
Either way, I should clarify that *I am not a voting member* as I went for the student membership for the 0.015% off my GDC pass.
Keep up the good work either way. The whole point of transparency is offering something for public debate, which you clearly have.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Additional thanks Corvus.
. I did not do this myself due to my past history with Tim mentioned in my blog. Didn’t want to have a petition called into question, pro or con, due to my personal experiences with Tim.
Already made my personal thoughts known for the most part in my gamSutra blog and addressed many of the points there so will be brief in my response here.
1. agree with Wendy on wording, but belive that engaging with IGDA on this is a positive step forward no matter if you get the 10% or not and what the outcome of the special meeting is. Members need to know that they can and should be active in the org, at multiple levels and on multiple issues. The majority of the membership is too passive ( or even passive aggressive, wink) and IGDa cannot thrive without active membership.
2. A new director will mean a new org ( not a dis on Jason). IGDA is at a size in which it needs a professional associTion manager to make it a more successful org. This is a step in the right direction.
3. As mentioned in my blog, but worth repeating here…
Mobi screwed up first. A simple trademark search costs nothing and in this day and age can be done in seconds. Mobi shouldn’t have called the game edge anymore than they should have called it Microsoft or xbox. IGDA has no choice but to say “It’s Legal” cuz it is. IGDA has no cause to remove Tim on this issue unless the allegations of inappropriate use of trademark are supported in the legal system. Then IGDA has cause.
4. Members don’t need cause
. Member discomfort with Tim’s represetation of himself on the Board Bios, His trade practices or even the cut of his beard are enough if you get the members to support it.
5. Personally I am uncomfortable with the one apparently undisputed and verifiable point that emerged on my blog regarding Tim’s trademarking of “edgy” after Mobi suggested it to him in good faith as an alternative name for their game. Still legal, yes. But apalling and ethically in direct opposition to the support of an independent one would expect from a seasoned professional and board member. Not legal cause for the Board to act, but certainly cause for the individual members to sign your petition, as I will
Please excuse any iPhone typos I may have missed.
sj
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:07 am
A few fresh thoughts for today…
“Vaguely threatening emails” – since no non-disclosure applies, could you post the text of said email into the comments here?
The Edgy debacle: Brian noted this is a matter of public record; it would be good for someone to construct the timeline of this somewhere, presenting only the factual information without interpretation.
Finally, while I appreciate the idea that people can vote ‘no’ in the poll, surely a poll of this kind is bound to attract many more ‘yes’ voters than ‘no’ voters? It’s easy to motivate an angry mob – much harder to motivate an uncertain mob.
If we were to have a poll, say, about the DRM in Spore, you would expect to get mostly negative results – the people who don’t care about the DRM are less likely to find or use the poll. It’s the self-selecting nature of these polls that tends to polarise them.
My concern here is fairness – I’m not attempting to condone the action of Tim’s lawyers, but this still feels like a lynch mob. I don’t believe that IGDA board members should be removed by a vote of this fashion… but I do believe that there should be a means to remove a board member; shouldn’t that means incorporate a hearing process that allows the party in question (at the very least) to make a statement prior to membership a vote?
Corvus, if your primary motivation is fair governance, wouldn’t it be better to champion constitutional reform for the IGDA rather than board member “assassination”?
This is clearly a hot button issue; thank you for allowing for debate here in “your back yard”.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:45 am
The person emailing me from within Edge Games has now disclosed their name. As it is not Tim himself or, as far as I can gather, a lawyer, the emails seem far less threatening.
I think I’ll keep the email private at this point. I’m not comfortable disclosing any private correspondence without some form of consent or compelling need.
A timeline would be interesting. In fact–I’d love to have a complete legal timeline of all Edge Games legal dealings. If I were a journalist I’d likely have already been building something like that.
The fact that people tend towards apathy is a huge part of my problem with the IGDA. If it is going to continue to suffer because of the apathy of a majority of its members–I’m not sure it can ever be as important as I’d like it to be. The fact that a majority of our members seem oblivious to this issue astounds me. The fact that the number of people willing to argue with me, and tell me I’m wrong to do this, far exceeds the number of No votes astounds me.
I was told, by a board member, that the bylaws didn’t really provide for the removal of a board member. I was prepared to do a lot of work to suggest changes to the bylaws and rally support for giving more control to the membership. As it turns out the bylaws do provide an option for removal–with or without cause.
So I don’t think we need a reform of the bylaws. I think we need a contentious issue to force us to think about where we stand on the running of the IGDA. I think we need an opportunity to argue, to challenge our notions of whether legality trumps ethics. I think we need an ado to spur us to action.
I will admit to being peeved. I’m personally peeved at the apparent behavior of Tim Langdell and Edge Games. I’m professionally peeved that my peers were simply ignored when they voiced protest, rather than addressed openly.
And, going forward, I will be actively working toward election reform. At the moment–I’m just interested in giving a course of direction to people who were starting to feel there was no course of direction at all.
Current Vote: 209 YES/ 2 NO
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Chris, the petition is designed to force the board to hold a special meeting, specifically for the purpose of voting on Tim’s removal.
As it’s a meeting and formal where rules of debate will apply, Tim can state his case very clearly for all to hear and the members present can make their decision after hearing all the relevant facts. This is how democracy, especially in an org like IGDA should work.
We keep hearing that IGDA is not the board, IGDA is the membership…well the membership is stirring, but the board are not.
I understand the discomfort some people have with this, what Tim’s doing isn’t illegal, not in the slightest (though trademarking “Edgy” the day after is apparently questionable, but IANAL)
But the fact is this all relates to character, we vote for people we feel we can trust to represent us. If after we’ve voted for them we discover, as we have, that they are not actually the people they represent themselves to be, we do have a perfect right to act and make a change.
The process is contrived and given the unfair logistics probably impossible, but acting is important. Even if we fail, this and future boards will remember what is happening here.
Tim is indeed a veteran developer, but his Trademark has been pretty redundant for many years, I mean really…how many games has Edge released in the last 10-15 years….hmmm? Games only seem to appear on the wesbsite around the time of a TM dispute when someone has a game with edge in it.
I’m fully aware of the Edge magazine and don’t doubt there is some arrangement with Tim and Future publishing, but for Tim to claim (as he did and has since removed from his website) that he spawned that mag is….well…its bollox isn’t it..as so is connection to other Edge related products he “spawned”
MobiGames cocked up, of that also I have no doubt, but considering that they are basically a couple of guys who went into their 1st business to spend 2 years working on an original game they came up with. Their legal naivete is not unusual among small indie developers, and is something we should try to improve rather than exploit, Tim seems to think otherwise.
Tim’s TM shenanigans are pretty easy to trace, TM law leaves a long paper trail, its hard to read and collate but am sure people are working on it, but the long and short of it, is that he’s been doing this for years, usually losing when someone has the means to stand up to him.
No one can really expect the IGDA board to be angels. Games is a cutthroat business and we have to expect to have pissed a few people off at different times in our careers, but if you’re going to represent developers on an org who’s stated aim is to further the cause of games developers..you don’t bully naive developers to further your own ends.
Tim is not the kind of person we should have on the board, its that simple, now that we know that, we want and should have the right to remove him and put someone there we do want to have on the board…and next time hopefully, the membership will have a quick check in the closet for any skeletons before voting.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:12 am
All this is fair enough, and I appreciate the attempts to restore a sense of ‘grass roots’ to the IGDA (although I wish it were possible to have done so with, say, the quality of life issue, rather than this specific “crisis”).
It’s not at all clear how Edge magazine relates to Tim’s company, but Tim uses their logo so my best-guess is that when Steve Jarratt set up the magazine in 1993 there must have been some arrangement set up at the time.
I appreciate why Brian and others have reached their conclusions about Tim’s character; it’s still mostly hearsay to me right now and I always uphold “innocent until proven guilty”, sometimes in the face of overwhelming circumstantial evidence. This is why I’m advocating the compilation of the facts-without-interpretation.
Regarding what is actually being voted for, the poll is headlined: “I request that the IGDA Board of Directors call a special meeting of the membership to remove Tim Langdell from his position on the IGDA board.”
As other have noted, this should probably read “to determine whether to remove Tim Langdell” or “to vote on whether to remove Tim Langdell” – as it reads currently, it seems to jump the gun, and express clear bias towards “yes” voters over “no” voters.
Anyway, bottom line: I’m not opposing what you’re doing, I’m just raising my concerns in part because I feel that most people are reluctant to stand up in the face of an “angry mob” (or a “peeved mob-ette!”). If that makes me “devil’s advocate”, I can live with that.
I do see this as a constitutional crisis, and going forward I suspect this will become clearer. In most organisations, the first step taken against an errant representative would be censure. A mechanism should exist for a vote of censure, but it apparently does not. Instead, you’ve had to dig into the dusty bylaws… yes, the rules are still there – but there will be people who invoke the “pig on the bridge” argument (it’s illegal in London to transport livestock over the bridges – a law that ceased to be relevant centuries ago but still exist on paper).
Well, if nothing else this is the most exciting thing to happen in the IGDA for many years.
I was thinking Darius’ board election was going to shake things up, but apparently we can’t wait that long.
With sincere best wishes to you all,
Chris.
July 24th, 2009 at 8:56 am
The following is a press release issued by The ChaosEngine to highlight the fighting fund, members have organized to aid Mobigame in their fight.
Donations can me made via paypal to mobigame@gmail.com. Funds go direct to MobiGame but the account is monitored by TCE members to ensure transparency and fairness. Please donate, even a $1 will make your show of support more tangible.
Developers Rally Round Colleagues Besieged by “Trademark Troll”
In an unprecedented show of support, members of the game development community from several countries have come together in support of French independent game developer Mobigame. Mobigame is involved in a legal dispute with former publisher Tim Langdell, who conducts business as Edge Games. Langdell has a history of confrontation with game companies using the word “Edge” in games titles.
Dispute Between Langdell and Mobigame
On July 15th, Langdell forced iPhone platform-holder Apple’s hand to block the sale of the award winning and triple IGF award nominated iPhone game ‘EDGE’. Langdell’s claim was that the product infringes on his trademark of the word ‘Edge’. Initially, when Mobigame voluntarily removed the game from the store they were receiving several emails per day from Langdell; some of which even went as far as threatening to sue the owner of Mobigame (David Papazian) personally, stating that it could cost David “millions of dollars”.
Mobigame actually own the trademark ‘EDGE’ in France, and the registration is on-going in Europe. Despite this, Langdell threatened to sue unless they remove the game from the AppStore entirely, even in the regions where Mobigame own the trademark. On May 14th, Mobigame proposed renaming the game to ‘EDGY’ for the UK and the US market, stating that their trademarks could co-exist since Mobigame will have the trademark in Europe, and they would rename the game to ‘EDGY’ for the UK & US markets. Langdell refused to accept this, and on May 16th he applied for the trademark ‘EDGY’ in the US.
As a small company, without access to substantial legal resources, Mobigame was keen to avoid a protracted legal dispute, and have tried on many occasions to reach an amicable solution. Unfortunately, negotiation with Langdell proved fruitless. Mobigame is currently evaluating their options, but are denied the income they were depending on from iPhone game sales.
Langdell’s History of Threats and Litigation
Langdell has a history of similar tactics with other small companies. He lists credits for games containing the word ‘Edge’ on his website, and claims credit for their development. In reality his involvement is limited to demanding money for the use of the word ‘Edge’. His legal relationship with renowned British development magazine EDGE is unclear, but claims that he “spawned” the publication were recently removed from his website. Even after the outrage among the international community of developers began to rise, Langdell applied for a trademark on the phrase, ‘Edge of Twilight’, days after Australian company, Fuzzyeyes Studio announced they were soon launching a game of that name.
Community Reaction
Game developers around the world have taken a dim view of Langdell’s actions, as trademark disputes have a far more profound effect on small game companies with limited resources for legal support.
To try to combat this, members of The Chaos Engine, a game industry professionals’ think-tank/forum have started a fund to aid Mobigame in what could be a lengthy legal dispute, during which time sales of EDGE are being restricted. There is also a Facebook group set-up to show support for Mobigame and EDGE.
“We think it’s important that Langdell not be allowed to bludgeon small companies with esoteric trademark laws,” says Paddy Sinclair, CEO of Proper Games Ltd. “Games may be a fun and light-hearted product, but this is still a professional industry. There’s no room for schoolyard tactics to extort money and claim unearned fame.”
Finding no support from their professional association, the IGDA, developers have taken the case into their own hands – organizing creative ways to help Mobigame with their plight. They hope to see industry luminaries speak out, and are galvanizing all their supporters to stand up against this unethical use of trademark law.
“Langdell needs to be stopped and anyone else who thinks it’s okay to take advantage of small game companies needs to know we’re not isolated, easy targets,” said Yacine Salmi, an industry veteran and current IGDA member.
IGDA Controversy
In further controversy, Tim Langdell is also a board member of game development advocate body International Game Developers Association (IGDA). Here he has a hand in guiding the professional association’s policies on aiding small game companies and improving the industry for all developers. So far the IGDA has officially taken no action and made only a short statement saying they don’t see a need to act.
“Just because Langdell managed to bluff his way onto the IGDA board doesn’t mean we as members support his unethical strategies, and we’re doing what we can to have him removed,” said Corvus Elrod of Zakelro Studios, an IGDA member and part of a small game company himself. He has started a petition for IGDA members to sign, calling for a special meeting where Langdell could be voted out of the IGDA board.
The Chaos Engine is a virtual community of game developers from around the globe. Launched in 2003, it has grown to include 7,000 game developers representing views from across the industry
July 24th, 2009 at 9:09 am
for Chris
http://www.tigsource.com/pages/edge-games
July 24th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
As the public statement by Fuzzyeyes yesterday revealed, the speculation about Edge’s behavior was entirely unfounded and inaccurate — Edge and Fuzzyeyes were in amicable talks for some months at the request of Fuzzyeyes, so none of the accusations and inuendo by the likes Papazian or Kotaku as to what was “really” going on (all of which painted Edge as the bad guys) was true.
Then there is the EDGY issue — the fact is Edge believed it had a deal with Papazian in which Mobigame had agreed to change the name of their game to EDGY and as part of that deal Edge would register EDGY in its name and license it back to Papazian at no cost (Papazian confirms this deal in his post to Stephen Jacobs’ blog on Gamasutra, so we know this is true). So Edge registered EDGY and then Papazian changed his mind about the deal. Later Papazian realizes he can get a lot more sympathy making up the fiction that Edge registered EDGY to stop him using it as a new name. No truth to that at all, and it is really sad that people believed Papazian (even after his admission about it being part of a proposed free license in his blog post). Fact is, Edge has made numerous offers to Mobigame to change the name of their game to EDGY, all of which offers involved NO money being paid by Mobigame, and Papazian has refused them all prefering instead to not change the name of his game. If he doesnt like EDGY anymore, how hard could it be to think up a new name?
This has been a lynch mob with Edge being found guilty without hearing both sides of the story. And whenever Edge’s side is heard(it has continually sold games every year since the late 70s, despite rumor to the contrary; it has won every trademark dispute it has had with all being settled amicably and no one saying Edge were trademark trolls, etc) then people just move on to find something else to falsely accuse Edge of. Not fair, but hopefully there are some bright people out there who can see what is really going on here.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
In my experience, “amicable agreement,” is a euphemism for “settled out of court.”
Nothing about the trademark settlements in Edge’s past would indicate you’d go to the expense of registering a trademark only to give it away. And perhaps some offer was made that David naively agreed to, only to change his mind after doing some research, or finding out about some hidden cost you hadn’t mentioned–like a cut of every sale. It wouldn’t be the first time something offered up as free turned out to be quite costly.
I’m not convinced by your arguments and without producing the actual correspondence–you’re doing nothing more than playing a game of he said-she said.
July 24th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
When we say “free”, or “no cost” we actually mean “free” and “no cost.” We can’t reveal any confidential documents as you ask, but we can confirm again that there is a very good reason why in some cases one might register a mark and then license it for no charge. It’s to do with the way trademark law works. It is more than a little irritating that you and others have taken everything Mobigame has said at face value being quick to put Edge’s head in a noose, but wont believe anything we say without documentary proof or doubting us at every turn.
I can assure you Papazian has had numerous offers to settle involving their changing the name of their game and each has been at zero (truly, no hidden cost, zero) cost to them. Papazian has refused all offers so far for reasons we cannot understand.
July 24th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Valid reasons such as giving future or ongoing claims against larger opponents more validity? Yeah, I’d tell you to shove that offer too, actually.
I will confess that in Mobigame’s position I would have changed the name immediately rather than get drawn into this, but I must also have to respect their chutzpah more than just a little.
July 24th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Why would you make yet more unfounded incorrect assumptions? That would not be the reason to do it.
So breaching trademark rights and refusing to change the name of the game when you realize you have made an error is ‘chutzpah’? You dont think the word “stubborn” might be a little more appropriate?
July 24th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
I am now privy to information that proves your characterization of events is a blatant falsehood. And, like you, I am unable to share this proof publicly. I will thank you not to use my blog as a platform for your further lies.
July 24th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
I assure you it is not false. Whatever you have been shown is either out of context or not a genuine document.
July 25th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Steve
since you’ve “won every trademark dispute it has had with all being settled amicably ” these will no doubt be a matter of public record, please supply details..
And be sure to include the Namco case you lost which was dismissed with Prejudice against EdgeGames.
July 25th, 2009 at 7:39 am
oh btw as you are claiming to speak for EdgeGames, would you also be so kind as to reveal who you are?
July 25th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Who said document? I said I was privy to information. Now who is making assumptions, Steve? I have warned you once about using my blog as a platform to spread your lies. I will not warn you again.
I would like to assure my community that the information I am privy to is neither falsified or out of context. I cannot reveal its contents, but it does not reflect the open and friendly approach to Mobigames that representatives of Edge Games have claimed they took.
I would also suggest that anyone who is interested in the pattern of behavior being demonstrated by Dr. Tim Langdell, Steve Roberts, and Edge Games watch the movie Minbo No Onna if you can find a copy. It’s a comedic, but fascinating, look at how thugs can twist the truth and intimidate honest people while remaining well within the constraints of social nicety.
July 25th, 2009 at 7:52 am
oh never mind…let me save you the trouble.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-challenge-decision-results/t-challenge-decision-results-bl?BL_Number=O/337/02
You haven’t actually won every case have you, indeed you seldom go to court since its easier and cheaper to tie people up in red tape with extensions and so on..
Here is part of the decision of the presiding officer on the Soul Edge case in which Tim was the opponent
“21. The opposition is dismissed in its entirety. In the event of such a finding the opponents
asked for an award of costs off the scale in view of the opponents’ actions in delaying matters
at every turn by either claiming they had not received correspondence, applying for hearings
at which they did not appear, provide skeleton arguments and generally putting the opponent
to a lot of expense and bother. Whilst it is certainly true that the opponents have repeatedly
claimed not to have received correspondence or to have claimed to have sent documents and
correspondence which have not been received either by the opponent or the Trade Marks
Registry, the applicants themselves have used the Trade Marks Rules to their advantage and
also sought the exercise of the Registrar’s discretion from time to time. In all of the
10
circumstances, taking into account the preliminary hearings that have occurred in these
proceedings, the evidence filed and the substantive hearing itself I order the opponent to pay
to the applicant the sum of £1000, this sum to be paid within seven days of the expiry of the
appeal period or within seven days of the final determination of this case if any appeal against
this decision is unsuccessful.”
Won every case….my god man, do you lie about everything, are you utterly incapable of telling the truth.
You’ve been exposed…pure and simple, and further exposure will follow especially if you keep repeating lie upon lie upon lie.
This whole debacle has exposed you as the pariah you are, not show some semblance of honour and step down from the IGDA and go find a job somewhere more suited to your talents. Like a sewage works!!
July 26th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
and woosh….he’s gone.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
[...] hätten die Mitglieder der Vereinigung die Möglichkeit – Macguffin verlinkt auf eine Petition, die von Mitgliederseite angestrengt wird – Langdell ihrerseits das Vertrauen zu entziehen. [...]
August 8th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Just want to throw two cents in here, as we have some white knights coming in here and stating, somewhat plausibly that while they don’t like the IP laws, Langdell is technically within his rights. That may be true. However, it is not his legal right to do it from within the IGDA. That’s the crux of the argument here, and it’s being missed.
If Bill Gates were a board member, and was using the IGDA as a reference to bolster Microsoft…and furthermore attacked members on the basis of IP and Trademark…exactly how long would he remain a board member of an organization dedicated to supporting indie developers?
This boils down to something very simple: does this man have the right to piss in the pool everyone else swims in, for his own purposes? Does he have the right to wear a badge given while he does this, given to him by some of the very people he is supposed to be serving and helping?
This debate is NOT about what his legal rights are. Anyone trying to frame it that way is dismissing the real point: This is about conduct, ethics and the idea that one of your own is attacking members and people in your chosen field from within.
Any organization that allows this kind of behavior is not worth a membership fee. That’s the point corvus is trying to make. IP and rights Langdell has or does not have are straw man arguments designed to lead away from the real point:
His conduct is unbecoming in a group of people trying to help each other out for the purpose of raising awareness in the indie game field. If that’s not a reason for removal…
I do not know what is.
August 8th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Two things:
First, now that the IGDA has officially announced that there will be a special meeting, I’ve closed the petition for now. Should something get derailed, I will re-open it.
Secondly, my contention is that Langdell’s actions are harmful to the entire industry, from EA to Mobigame. It seems clear to me that he is not a game developer at this time, but makes his living preying off those who are–which does not qualify him to be on the board of the IGDA. I only wish this had come to light before he’d been elected.
January 14th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
[...] little over a month after Stephen’s post, Corvus Elrod decides to spearhead the petition for a special meeting and the removal of Tim Langdell. I’ve met Corvus, he’s a great [...]