Second verse, same as the first
Yesterday I talked about Tim Langdell and his association with the IGDA. Of course, this isn’t the first time the IGDA has hit controversy over over a member of their board of directors, but, when a member of the board goes under fire, it’s expected that the IGDA will give some kind of response on the issue. Based on previous experience, and the fact that there are many members of varying opinions on the board, I was expecting exactly what we got. A very softball response to the issue. The synopsis of this post by the IGDA in my opinion says “we aren’t the courts, so we can’t say who is in the right. But we think IP protection is important”. Unfortunately, this misses the point. We know the IGDA is not the adjudicator of disputes, but it IS supposed to be a body that tries to represent the best interests of the independent developer community. Something is wrong if you are taking on board members like Tim Langdell, who has had a history of what many have described as “trademark trolling”. Even if this case is a matter for the courts, his position in the IGDA is worrisome at best. I don’t care for the IGDA to be the courts, I just want some semblance of responsibility when taking on board members in the first place.
May 31st, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I am speaking now for myself and NOT on behalf of the IGDA or as an IGDA Board member. But as me, Tom Buscaglia, The Game Attorney.
This dispute relates to a company enforcing its properly registered Trademark. While you or I may not agree with the laws related to Trademarks, they are what they are. Moreover, the IGDA represents the individuals who make games, not the companies that make them. So, although no one is more committed to independent developers than I am, this is a legal dispute between two companies regarding an alleged Trademark infringement. So, while I laud your efforts to fight for the little guy here, these matters are for the court of law, not for a public opinion.
I think this matter is a bit more complex that it has been presented too…As someone who has litigated intellectual property cases, I can tell you that these cases are never as simple as they might seem, especially when one only has access to one side of the story. I suspect that is you had spend 20 odd years building a Trademark to brand your studio and games, and paid to have a Trademark registered, you might also feel compelled to enforce your trade name. BTW, if you do not enforce your Trademark, you may lose it. So you may want to also take that into account in your analysis!
Trade and service marks, usually both called “trademarks”, are words, symbols and other things use to identify the source of a product in commerce. Some little know trademarks are Kodak Yellow and the sound of a Harley. Both are protected. But usually trademarks are names and logos. This description of a trademark from the U.S. Patent and Trademark office may help:
“A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms “trademark” and “mark” are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks.
“Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. Trademarks which are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be registered with the Patent and Trademark Office.”
I personally do not think that lobbying the IGDA to intervene or even take sides in a legal dispute is the right approach. If Tim’s position is correct (and I do not have enough information to determine that issue one way of the other) you are recommending that the IGDA potentially support a party who has infringed a legal and enforceable Trademark..and that’s just nutty!
So, I just do not see that as a viable position for the organization under any circumstances. In any case, I do not see any Board member vigorously enforcing his legal rights as contrary to the code of ethics in any way. I regret that Bob’s thoughtful response did not satisfy you…but I agree with his position on this matter.
Tom B
June 1st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Hi there. I agree that it’s important to view both sides of a situation before we can truly understand things, but it is unfortunate that this is happening. I think Daniel makes a good point that board members and the IGDA should help to represent the best interests of indie game developers. Although I dont believe it’s a fiduciary relationship, there simply should be more care taken with how board members represent themselves and as part of the IGDA board. Even if Tim didn’t intend on making the IGDA or indie game devs “look bad”, the point is it will be seen that way whether anyone likes it or not. Bahhh, news on the Internet spreads like wild fires, doesn’t it?