Talk:Edge Games/Archive 1

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of this proposal was to merge Softek into EDGE Games (no discussion). MuZemike (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose that Softek be merged into EDGE Games because they are the exact same company; Softek was later renamed EDGE Games. Softek can be better mentioned here as part of EDGE Games' history. Please discuss here. (If no discussion occurs within five days of my sign date, then this merger proposal will automatically pass.) MuZemike (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citations and claims

The article claims that The Edge is the "longest established British computer game company" although the citation does not provide any proof for this. Similarly the claim that The Edge has "developed and published more than 180 games" is not proven by its citation. The link only provides evidence of 12 games being connected to The Edge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samnm (talk • contribs) 02:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what I put in my comment for my edit (about the 12 games instead of 180), but since obviously anyone that doesn't have an account is a vandal, those claims are still there.--69.145.0.91 (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, those claims were still there because people other than you were vandalizing the page so badly that I had to revert back to the last stable version from the 29th. Of the 82 revisions I reverted through, I'm sure some were perfectly okay, but it wasn't possible to change all the vandalism individually. So there's no conspiracy against you or IP accounts - it's just a function of the rampant vandalism that was taking place. By all means, please make your revisions. The fact that you are editing from an IP account doesn't give anyone the right to revert you blind of your content. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest issue

I've posted about this here.Glider87 (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing the page to show actual details

It is obviously clear from the mobygames link at the bottem of the page that only 12 games have been produced, and few of them were successful. It might also be smart to write a section about the legal troubles again, As future lawsuits may occure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.20.152 (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, constructive edits are certainly welcome, as is a discussion on this talk page. Based on your past edits, you may want to decide first if you have a conflict of interest when it comes to this subject, though. If you believe that you can edit this article from a neutral point of view, then by all means, you are welcome to do so.

Regarding the number of games made by EDGE, I have to say that I can't figure it out. Yes, the mobygames link (which has been removed from the article at the moment) shows 12 games. However, the World of Spectrum link (also removed) shows 22 Edge Games, as well as 32 Softek games (and about 11 other games also related to Softek). In addition, the games listed at WoS appear to only show Sinclair games, which is certainly an incomplete list.

So I don't know how many games have been made by EDGE (and it's other names), but it appears to be more than 12 and less-than or equal-to the 180 listed on the corporate website. Maybe the best way to proceed is with links to both sites above, with a statement that they have developed "numerous games" and leave it there.

If you want to add a section about legal troubles, make sure it is well-documented with reliable sources. It is important to avoid improper accusations. Correct, factual, referenced statements about document legal troubles are 100% okay, though.

Finally, and to everyone who was involved, note that the semi-protected status of this page expires later today, which means it will be open for edits by all contributors. If the vandalism from yesterday continues, I will have it protected again, but for a longer period of time. I hope we can avoid that. If you want to correct the facts in this article, then the best (and only) way to do so is by discussing your points, backing up your claims, and making good edits. Vandalism will simply be reverted, and lead to the page being protected and your IP being blocked. If that happens, then the page will likely remain as it is. Your choice. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the section on lawsuits, both here an on Tim Langdell. Some of the allegations were totally unsourced, and I couldn't find anything on the internet backing them up (like the U2 story, which was mentioned elsewhere with this site as the source of information). In addition, no reliable sources have said that Langdell is making his living by slapping around frivolous lawsuits. He may be doing that (for all I know), but we can't say it here unless it's properly sourced. I think the current section gets the point across without making unsupported claims. The sources used are all reliable, and it should stand up to scrutiny. If there are other reliable sources that document other lawsuits, then please add them, or list them here and someone else can add them (if you're not familiar with how to add something like this). --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

Just to explain my tagging of this article. One big problem is that the "lawsuit" section lists a number of things which are not lawsuits. Also, some things are said to be trademark infringement disputes when they are not. Also, although this is more of POV problem, Edge are being accused of bad faith for some of their actions when there is nothing to suggest bad faith - although it might appear to be bad faith if the process of registering a trademark is not fully understood.

Having said that, well done everyone in collecting all this information together. It just needs a bit of tweaking to ensure the sources are correctly represented in the article. Don't feel disheartened, I've had to correct featured articles in the past for similar reasons: Intellectual property is such an obscure branch of law. GDallimore (Talk) 14:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work so far. This is a dicey area, so having an experienced set of eyes is very much appreciated. Are there more changes you wanted to make to the trademark section, or can we remove the tag? I don't want to remove it until you are done, but I also don't want to leave it if you are already done. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry I'm getting bogged down in getting through the rest of the section. Soon, I promise... GDallimore (Talk) 18:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, and no apologies necessary. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Made it through the second case and decided to delete it. Unlike the Soul Blade case where it led to a change of name of a mainstream game, this dispute appears entirely minor and completely unworthy of note. Evidence of the case's minor nature is that it was not apparently reported by any reliable sources and the only sources provided were the opinions and decisions of the court itself. No third party reliable source found the dispute worthy of note, so why should wikipedia?

Also, looking through the newly added iPhone section, it includes a classic error: there is no such thing as a "global" trademark. Don't know where this error arose from, but looks like I'll have to go through that section, too. GDallimore (Talk) 19:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree that the case is not worthy of note, for two reasons. First, it is part of the bigger picture which shows Edge trying to claim rights to products it hasn't in any way developed by way of enforcing their supposed trademark (agree or disagree with their approach or its legality, that is what they are doing, and what they did in this case). In that way, any instance in which Edge is engaging in this behavior would be, in my opinion, worthy of mention. And second, the fact that Edge now claims this PC as one of its products on its web page seems to make the fact that they did not develop it important (see here, where it says "Manufactured under license from Edge"). No, the dispute was not covered in the mass media (as far as I am aware), but the court opinions themselves should represent reliable sources, especially to establish what the court's opinion was.

I also don't agree that the opinion makes it clear that Edge's "attempts to mislead" were not as bad as the quotes indicated. The opinion contains numerous quotes that spell out the delay tactics (including outright lies) that Edge engaged in. Where do you see that these really were minor issues? I'm not seeing it at all.

Unless I'm missing something, I would like to add the case back. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the response I expected, but the thing is: if there's a "bigger picture" then there's no reliable source commenting on it, so trying to create a big picture by bringing together a collection of disparate sources is original research by WP:SYNTHESIS. Much as I agree Edge's tactics look dodgy, this is not the forum to be commenting on that unless a reliable source has already done the commenting. For the case I removed, for example, there was no third party or independent (these being the key points) source suggesting that the case was worthy of note or part of a bigger picture of abuse.

As for the dodginess of this particular case, it's a sad fact that it's what lawyer's do to protect their client's interests if they were otherwise going down. In this case, the extensions were vital to obtain time ressurrect the particular Edge company, so they did what had to be done and got punished for it by a costs order. End of story; no big conspiracy - it's just the way corporate law works. GDallimore (Talk) 22:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Actually, I was thinking about this between my last comment and now. What I'm starting to wonder is if this company is even notable enough for this article. Follow me on this. The only thing they are even remotely notable for is their trademark disputes. And they aren't exactly covered in the mainstream press for that (or anything). They haven't made any actual games in some time, and they don't produce anything. They had about 2-3 semi-popular titles for long-extinct computer systems back in the 1980s. So my question now is: should this article even exist?

If the answer turns out to be yes, then I think adding the case back in without do much detail is probably warranted (kill the mentions of the stall tactics, and keep the mention of the case, maybe in the later list of disputes. I don't really agree that lying about Langdell leaving the company is "par for the course" when it comes to representing your client, but I'm willing to put that aside.

Let me know what you think about general notability first, though. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Double-dip, sorry. Regarding the WP:OR, I don't see that as the case here. If all that was listed was a collection of primary sources, then WP would be the place where the "bigger picture" was being formulated. I agree that would be a problem. However, there are plenty of sources making the claim that Edge is brandishing it's trademark as a weapon and trying to make a profit off of the backs of others. The real question is: are they reliable sources?

No, the New York Times hasn't weighed in. But the sites that have covered this are more than self-published blogs, and yet less than mass media outlets. My question here isn't rhetorical, it's a real question. The media is changing, and I think we need to decide if sources like the ones cited here (not the court documents, obviously) are to be considered reliable sources. Really, issues like this simply won't usually be covered anywhere else.

If they are considered reliable sources, then the research isn't original - it's using their allegations. If they are not considered reliable sources, then just about everything notable that Edge has ever done would have to be wiped from the article. And that, to me, would mean simply deleting the article.

Again, let me know what you think. Thanks. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to try getting involved any more, so I've removed the disputed tag. Seems to be an Internet hate campaign against Langdell and I'm going to walk away from it. I've put a POV tag up because I think the article has nothing in it but criticism and don't see this problem being resolved in th near future. Happy editing. GDallimore (Talk) 18:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Have reported my fears of potential BLP violations to WP:BLPN#Edge Games and Tim Langdell. GDallimore (Talk) 18:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There most certainly is a large group of people who dislike Langdell and who are trying to attack him (please note that I am not part of it). That's how I was sucked into this page - rampant vandalism after the Mobigames story broke. Add to that the fact that the article was originally written by someone who appears to be Langdell's wife, and was an unsourced vanity page, and I think you'll see how we got to this point.

I (and others) have been trying to make this as "right" as possible. All unsourced claims were removed, and the article is now pretty well policed for blatant BLP issues. The main issue remaining, I think, is the question of whether the sources that have covered the trademark disputes are reliable sources. If they are, then I think we're in decent shape. If they are not, then I don't think that Edge Games has done anything that is covered in reliable sources, and the article should likely be deleted.

I'm sorry you won't be continuing to edit on this article. Your input was sorely needed. That said, the extra eyes from the BLP notice may help to answer some of the bigger questions that I feel are outstanding here. Frankly, I look forward to the assistance. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Stalking

While the restraining order is juicy news, for God's sake, nobody put it up on the page until we have some reliable thirdparty corroboration, even if it's just to say that "{huge and reliable web site X} has claimed that...".137.195.68.169 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the section in question as it represented a poorly sourced, negative comment about a living person. The comments of an anonymous commenter on a web site, coupled with vague information about a restraining order against someone named Tim Langdell isn't really enough to make this allegation, as far as I'm concerned. Without a report in a solid, reliable source that makes it clear that this is the same Tim Langdell, I don't think this should be included. In addition, the way the entry was phrased made it sound like original research was being done by Wikipedians, which is another problem.

Yes, the article for Tim Langdell redirects here. In addition, Edge is basically a one-man operation centering on Tim Langdell. So some personal information about him is, indeed, relevant in this article. Is this particular information relevant? Maybe. But without better sourcing and a clear indication that this is the same Tim Langdell that runs Edge, it doesn't belong here. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability and Reliable Sources

I wanted to make this its own discussion, because I think it's a critical issue for this entire article. What I'm starting to wonder is if this company is even notable enough to have an article.

The only thing they are even remotely notable for is their trademark disputes. And they aren't exactly covered in the mainstream press for that (or anything else). They haven't made any actual games in some time, and they don't produce anything. They had about 2-3 semi-popular titles for long-extinct computer systems back in the 1980s. So my question now is: should this article even exist?

There are plenty of sources talking about the trademark issues, and some making the claim that Edge is brandishing it's trademark as a weapon and trying to make a profit off of the backs of others. The real question is: are they reliable sources, and further are they reliable enough to source negative statements about this company and its CEO? The sites that have covered this are, I would say, higher up the chain than self-published blogs, and yet lower down the chain than mass media outlets. But then again, the media is changing, and I think we need to decide if sources like the ones cited in this article are to be considered reliable sources. Really, issues like this won't usually be covered anywhere else.

Here are the sources I'm talking about:

1. The Independent Gaming Source
2. Kotaku, the Gamer's Guide
3. FingerGaming
4. Eurogamer
5. touchArcade
6. Gamasutra

Some list pretty extensive groups of writers, editors, etc. If they are considered reliable sources, then the statements in the article should be okay. If they are not considered reliable sources, then just about everything notable that Edge has ever done would have to be wiped from the article. And that, to me, would mean simply deleting the article (though YMMV).

I'd love to have some others weigh in on this. Thanks. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I dispute the claim that Edge Magazine ever used the Edge name under license from Edge Games. From issue 183 ("Christmas 2007") onwards there is indeed a notice stating that Edge is a registered trademark of Future publishing but, as I own every single of Edge, I've now sampled 15 issues between issue 1 and 182 and haven't found a single one that mentions the name being used under license from Edge Interactive Media Inc. Unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, the mention of Edge Magazine in this article is entirely irrelevant and should be removed. M0thr4 (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I had tagged it, and your claim is good enough for me. It has been removed. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Are these people really threatening every company and product with "Edge" in its name with lawsuits? 2fort5r (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the sources above, that's what's going on. They support their claims with links to court documents, and some have interviewed some of the various players. Based on the interviews, Edge acknowledges that they are taking the actions described, but they feel they are justified in doing what they are doing. These disputes are, as far as I can tell, the only thing that this company is notable for. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with wikipedia source discussions, but as I was passing through I thought I'd share some thoughts. The sources mentioned above consistently report accurate information with regards to the independent gaming scene. While this is not especially significant to the general population, the very existence of a video game portal on Wikipedia provides precedent for considering larger trends in independent gaming significant. The problem then becomes deciding whether or not individual issues and events from the independent gaming culture deserve notice from wikipedia; the sources may be reliable as far as accurately representing independent gamers and game developers, but that speaks nothing as to why Wikipedia should be concerned with Edge Games and other issues from that corner of the internet. This is an article about an obscure game developer who is primarily involved in shady litigation and is primarily recognized in negative light by small time game developers and industry workers. Edge Games is mentioned by what I consider reliable authorities on their primary subject, but this is the only part of the media where the company seems to be mentioned, and even here Edge Games is something of an uncomfortable liner note rather than a major player, trend or event. Going back to reliability, when the inherent bias on the part of these parties with respect to Edge Games is also taken into consideration, the discussion on how reliable these sources are becomes a lot less absolute. If this were an article about a popular indie game or developer, I would think any of these sites could be considered a reliable source for information in the form of interviews and such. But it isn't. In summary: I think in many scenarios those sources could be considered reliable, but I still doubt Edge Games merits a Wikipedia entry. Firndeloth (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Upon reconsideration, perhaps deciding that the listed sources are reliable and relevant is enough to give this article relevance. I yield to further comment. Firndeloth (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Kotaku and Gamasutra are definitely notable and reliable in my experience. Eurogamer is to a lesser extent. The others, I've never heard of. 63.230.136.137 (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You can think of Gamasutra as the online edition of Game Developer Magazine. Both publications are owned by United Business Media U.S. subsidiary Think Services, which also owns the Game Developers Conference series. Think operates a number of blogs, including FingerGaming. Eurogamer.net is owned by the English firm Eurogamer Network, which owns GamesIndustry.biz. The latter publication is claimed to be "the world's most influential publication for games industry professionals" but that claim is puffery and nonfactual. Due to the tabloid format, I'd say Kotaku is as credible and reliable as the New York Post. Adraeus (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

EA has officially responded to EDGE's claimed IP rights to Mirror's Edge. They may have just catapulted themselves into notability. See the material I've added, sources include NASDAQ and Gamesindustry.biz. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'd say that this coverage at least answers the question of notability. I moved the section up within the trademark section as it seems to be both the most recent and the most covered issue. Good add. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia, but I have been tracking this company for a while on NeoGAF. Seems to me that notability comes down to two things (1) whether a games company that (apparently) hasn't made anything since the early 1990's is notable enough on that account and (2) whether it is sufficiently notable as a case study/current event in trademark law. At present the latter seems to make it notable enough, or at least to become so - as it raises some serious issues about the ground-level operation of national trademark offices. As to sources, the gaming internet sources cited have been mostly derivative and not particularly well-informed on the legal front for handling the IP issues, too often making big news of legal molehills. That isn't to say that they aren't generally reliable in the gaming sphere, but they get lost a bit in the legal stuff. Court records are the best bet, and I'd suggest that an *accumulation* of different court records is enough to source a sensible article on, though the original TIGsource and Eurogamer articles and the original research from Chaosedge have proved to be accurate over time, as subsequently reflected in court judgments. For balance, there ought to be more reference to the gaming origins of the company (it did do some VERY well-regarded games in the 1980s). I'm happy to have a go at editing this, but in view of the pace things are moving at now (trademarks getting cancelled/abandoned etc left right and centre, and the potential for further lawsuits) I suspect it would be best to let an encyclopaedic article rest for a couple of months until things settle down. Just because the EA case is over doesn't mean everything is. Phisheep (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phisheep (talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Edge games actually the same company as Softek?

Currently the article says that "Edge Games was founded in 1979", however from a legal claims by Dr Langdell in 1997 [1], he explains:

Dr Langdell explains that in 1980 he formed a company trading as Softek Software in the UK. In 1983 this company became incorporated as Softek International Ltd. In 1990 he formed an American corporation, The Edge Interactive Media Inc. which acquired the intellectual property rights from Softek.

Hence I'd suggest a change to "Edge Games was founded in California in 1990 by Tim Langdell. At that time it acquired the intellectual property assets of his former company, Softek". Oberono (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just took a look at the source. I agree with your suggestion. Please note that Softek redirects to this article, so the background information about Softek should not be omitted, but the wording should be changed to follow the source here. Maybe:

Edge Games was founded in California in 1990 by Tim Langdell. At that time, it acquired the intellectual property assets of Langdell's former company, Softek Software, itself founded in 1980 in London, England. Edge is best known for two of Softek's game titles: Fairlight, released in 1985, and Garfield: Big Fat Hairy Deal, released in 1987.

Make sense? --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure (fixed a typo in it), but I'm not sure about the "Best known" section, is there a source for that? Oberono (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made your suggest change anyway, as the games were already mentioned. Oberono (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the reference to the company being 'best known for its extensive back catalog of 8-bit games' since there's no evidence cited for this (and it seems fairly POV), but I saw this discussion and had a look around. The Fairlight page links to this page about the game, which includes numerous scans of the game's packaging and magazine articles, dated 1985 and referring to "The Edge" as the software house responsible for the game. Is it worth mentioning that the Softek software was produced under the 'The Edge' name, even if the current company is a newer legal entity? Redset (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Name

I thought wiki did not take notice of irregular uses of capitals. Should this not be Edge Games rather than using a marketing device of all caps? MrMarmite (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)

• Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official":
  • avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS
  • instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss

It should be changed. Oberono (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. MrMarmite (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Judge orders Langdell to notify licensees of trademark cancellation

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/30891/Judge_Orders_Langdell_To_Notify_Licensees_Of_Edge_Trademark_Cancellations.php

Hot off the wire today. The judge in the EA vs Edge lawsuit has ordered Langdell to notify all of the licensees that the trademark on EDGE is cancelled. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)