Going Over The Edge: Indie Mass Protest

By John Walker on November 12th, 2009 at 2:32 pm.

What an edgy move.

A lot of indie games have just changed their names. Remember Fez? It’s now Fedge. Tyler Glaiel’s Closure is now named Closure: on the EDGE of reality™. The forthcoming iPhone game Critter Crunch is henceforth referred to as Critter Credge. And the enormously enjoyed Canabalt is now called Canabedge. Although Atomic Edge Games aren’t too pleased about it all. Other new games have been announced including Ted Marten’s Edgeward McEdgington, Secret Exit promises to bring us LEDGE, Steph Thirion’s Eliss declares a sequel, Edgeliss, Tyler Glaiel is back with a new game, Edgeform: On The Edge Of Insanity, and there’s rumours of a new game from Dejobaan, EeeeeEEeeeEEEeeEEEEeEEEEEdge! A Feckless Disregard For Poopieheads. You may have noticed a pattern. This is a solidarity movement amongst the indie development community to stand up to the legal actions of Tim Langdell, who has recently launched another attempt to remove a game from Apple’s iTunes store due to including the word “Edge” in its title.

If you didn’t follow the story of Langdell’s attempt to remove EDGE from iTunes, there is no better place to catch up than Simon Parkin’s astonishing piece for Eurogamer. EDGE is back up, after an intervention by EA, but Langdell is now trying the same with a game called Killer Edge Racing.

The movement above is a response to this, a sort of burst-the-prisons protest, with an increasing number of developers standing up to the legal actions from Langdell. You can follow the list on Touch Arcade.

If you wish to delve deeper into investigations of Langdell, and find some really remarkable discoveries about his business, be sure to follow Chaos Edge. The posts are long, but they’re meticulously researched, and carry some hefty surprises.

__________________

« | »

, , , .

114 Comments »

  1. Anonymity Is Strength says:

    If you encounter this guy on the streets, kick him REALLY HARD IN THE CROTCH. Don’t hold back, don’t have it be ‘its the thought that counts.’ Kick him in the crotch so hard that it bleeds. If he crumples to the ground, you should take the opportunity to kick him in other vulnerable places. One wonders how the IGDA manages to retain any legitimacy having had ‘Doctor’ Langdell on the board for so long.

  2. Emily says:

    You know, EA may be that evil mega-corporation which we, as humans, all fear, and they may only be backing the suit against Langdell out of malice and spite, but at least their malice and spite is leading them to the EDGE of good.

  3. Mad Doc MacRae says:

    Trademark (and copyright and patent) law is stupid.

    I hope this Langdell fellow is knee-capped, at least legally if not otherwise.

  4. A-Scale says:

    “Trademark (and copyright and patent) law is stupid.”

    Say that after you come up with the world changing invention that would make you fantastically rich.

    • medwards says:

      So because a few deserving individuals wouldn’t be as wealthy we should keep a system that is utterly flawed and overall would be better off without? It’s not like innovation would just stop entirely. There is no factual research to back up that claim, and limited evidence to show that the REVERSE is true. The reality is that patents and copyrights create a situation where it is cheaper and easier to create the APPEARANCE of innovation rather than the substance. Now, using your own economic argument, can you show me how this system promotes innovation?

    • A-Scale says:

      @medwards

      That’s part of it. I think people have a right to profit from their creations, and someone who designs a machine that cures cancer certainly deserves to profit more than does a farmer, despite the fact that one creates something tangible while the other is just an idea.

      Further, the profit motive is one of the strongest forces in the creation of new ideas. You’ll note how few great inventions came out of the Soviet Union compared with those which originated in the United States during the 20th century.

      Further, individuals throughout history who invented as a means to put food on their table is ample. The cotton gin would not exist if it were not for Eli Whitney’s invention (though he lost money on it due to weak copyright law, forcing him into poverty and keeping him from creating more inventions).

      Some of the greatest inventions of the Industrial Revolution came from this profit motive. The world would not be what it is today if it were not for men like Trevithick, IK Brunel, Watt, Fulton, Singer, Ford, Bell, Edison and Tesla. Those men could largely not have created the inventions they did was it not for copyright law. You can hardly expect inventors to starve for the greater good, or for them to invent as prolifically in a system without patents (in which they would have to have a day job beyond inventing to keep alive) as they do in a system with patents. Unless you want to posit a system of government sponsorship for inventors (which would inevitably be rife with corruption and be totally unfair to the inventors, for who is to decide what their invention is worth?) I do not believe you can hope for technology to advance nearly as fast as it has in the past few centuries, thereby worsening the lot of all men.

    • medwards says:

      I hate bullshit double-standards, not to mention inaccuracies regarding everything that ISN’T capitalism.

      Your argument (including the crap ‘evidence’) is that people won’t invent without profit motive and that a great many things were invented that people happened to make a profit on, and these people would never have created without the profit motive. Then you go on to say that a state-sponsored system (which isn’t my ideal alternative, don’t pigeonhole me into your false dichotomies) will inevitably be rife with corruption and inefficiency. Or in a nutshell: The free market is more efficient and less corrupt than the government.

      In response to this: Grow up. The free market isn’t less corrupt than a state-sponsored system, its just legally corrupt. You think this Langdell dude is an exception?! Christ, what about the tobacco companies that setup a dude as an ‘independent’ and pay him a 6 figure salary to tell the world that smoking isn’t bad for your health? Even at its best the free market promotes parasitic middle-men and bottom-feeders, but after complaining about state corruption you want them to make laws that protect intellectual property as if that will solve the problem (cluebat: it won’t). But this isn’t even my point: Do I expect people to invent and not eat? Did I say that? No. Do I think I can make a system where there isn’t intellectual property AND we still have inventors? Not within the current politics. So think outside the damned box because the existing one is in tatters and functionally useless.

      Meanwhile, your arguments contain pernicious misrepresentations that make everything you say afterwards laughable (no really. I laughed):
      To the Soviet Unions’ ‘technological backwardness’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Soviet_Union
      Not to mention the fact that they were BEATING the US at the Space Race. But then again this is the classic false dichotomy set forth: the USSR was basically one giant capitalist employer so to even set them against the States is always worthy of a laugh.

      Meanwhile your list of inventors is meaningless, I can just as easily cite the Wright Brothers and then point out how they devolved their entire enterprise into pointless patent litigation instead of doing what they did best: inventing. In the end they stifled innovation, and if you want to talk about greater good, thus setting back the entire industry. If you want to speak about ‘worsening the lot of all men’ then you did good to pick Henry Ford. While not a pioneer in dehumanising the labourers who manufacture his wealth, he certainly excelled at it.

      In support of my own position I proffer:
      http://www.stlr.org/volumes/volume-x-2008-2009/torrance/ “Data generated thus far using PatentSim suggest that a system combining patent and open source protection for inventions (that is, similar to modern patent systems) generates significantly lower rates of innovation”
      http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm I particularily recommend Chapter 9
      and a recent example of abuse: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111094923390
      I’d like to submit THE ENTIRE OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT as a counterexample for “People will not do socially useful work in their spare time” malarkey.

    • A-Scale says:

      “In response to this: Grow up”

      I stopped reading here. You’d do well to try some of your own medicine.

    • James G says:

      I’ll agree that IP law as it stands at the moment could do with a bit of reform, although I am thankful that Europe currently seems to be in a better state than the US. However, I don’t think its entirely without merit.

      For example, look at drug development. It costs vast amounts of money to bring a drug to market, candidates fall at each hurdle, and clinical trials are expensive. However, once that research is done, the cost of actually producing the drug is negligible. If it weren’t for patents, this would allow a rival company to immediately begin producing the drug, and, because they don’t have to bear the R&D costs, they could undercut the original company. As a result, there would be no financial incentive for drug development.

      Of course, with the case of drugs, you have a whole host of other issues at play, in particular the costs charged to those who may not be able to afford it. You could use the patent law framework to force, or strongly encourage, companies to license drugs to generics manufacturers for distribution in developing countries. This will have the side effect of promoting a grey-market drugs trade, although this is unlikely to be of significance in countries with nationalized health services. Another alternative would be to introduce a system of prize funds, focusing on diseases with significant impact on poorer communities (HIV, Malaria etc.) which would be awarded to those who develop suitable drugs/solutions which are either released without patent, or with licensing terms that meet the needs of the ‘prize.’

      Also, don’t forget that unlike copyright, patents last for a relatively short length of time. If you are not innovating while your patent is running out, then you’ll lose your competitive edge over your rivals when the time comes.

    • James G says:

      Okay, your second reply came while I was writing mine. However, if you are talking about overhauling the entire social and political system in the process of arguing against the current IP system, then it seems strange to just target one aspect of it. The current system evolved in a capitalist society, if you are going to change that, then of course the system will be no longer applicable.

    • Boldoran says:

      There are many situations where patents are useful but software development is not really one. Especially in a case like this. It should just not be possible to register a name just to try and extort mony from people that ARE actually the ones doing the innovation thus hindering innovation instead of driving it.

      Also the whole case of software patents is a bit dubious. Many big software firms are hoarding patents not to enforce them but just to make sure they can not be sued by patent trolls. Again they have to spend more effort to protect their innovation than they would have to spend without the patent law.

    • Boldoran says:

      There are many situations where patents are useful but software development is not really one. Especially in a case like this. It should just not be possible to register a name just to try and extort mony from people that ARE actually the ones doing the innovation thus hindering innovation instead of driving it.

      Also the whole case of software patents is a bit dubious. Many big software firms are hoarding patents not to enforce them but just to make sure they can not be sued by patent trolls. Again they have to spend more effort to protect their innovation than they would have to spend without the patent law.

      Oh and I laughed pretty hard at the edgesplosion of games with EDGE in their names.

    • neems says:

      Discussions of political philosophy aside, I’m sure it must be possible to change copyright law, rather than either abolish it or enshrine it. I don’t think Tim Langdell is what they had in mind when they came up with the existing regulations (and all others of his ilk).

      It’s to be expected that laws need to evolve as people find new ways of applying them / dicking them around. The problem is when the people who make the laws just shrug and say ‘Meh it’s fine, worked for centuries’. If laws don’t change with society, then somebody isn’t doing their job properly.

    • neems says:

      I believe (I may be wrong) that Tim Langdell likes to claim some sort of affiliation with Edge Magazine. I’m not sure if Edge ever had any dealings with him though. I suspect Mr (term used loosely) Langdell tries to avoid the bigger fish as far as possible. Otherwise he could end up with gigantic international corporations sueing his arse off.

    • medwards says:

      @James G: I target one aspect of socio-political relations because as Santiago pointed out, questioning intellectual property raises questions about the sacredness of private property. Gut reactions involving hobos aside, I think this is a question that critical thinkers should take seriously.

      However, I am also impressed by all these profit motivators who refuse to read either of my referenced pieces which point out that ultimately open patent system (and I’ll admit I extend the argument to include all intellectual property) restrict innovation and provide profitable opportunities to actually create blocks on progress. Were I a strong proponent of the free market it would be trivial to point out that patents make industries as a WHOLE unhealthier, less innovative, and more likely to stagnate. I’ll point it out again, but a detailed study ( http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm ) of the early paint and chemicals industry and the pre-WIPO pharmaceuticals industry shows that patents kill your competitors, which enables you to be lazy. This is be akin to allowing only one RAM manufacturer, and I don’t think any of us would be happy with the prices, variety and quality then.

      I also think that Raillicks makes an alright argument that patents are NOW negative influencers regardless of their history as being positive or negative. However, I still think drawing trademark and copyright is appropriate: they are all about taking non-physical things and treating them as exclusive trade advantages.

  5. Railick says:

    Did he invent the word Edge?

    • Ergates says:

      Not just that, he actually invented the concept of edges. Until Tim Langdale came along, the entire universe was just one giant amorphous blob.

    • Spod says:

      No no no, you’re all wrong. He invented words full stop. We should be grateful that he has only chosen one to copyright, if he wasn’t so gracious we’d be paying him for everything we say.

  6. Frankie The Patrician[PF] says:

    Let’s change RPS to Rock Paper Edge :)

  7. Railick says:

    I'm not saying I'm going to agree with you or disagree with you medwards but I would like to say thusly.

    The more inventions that are created in this world the less NEW inventions we will see. People are already getting a little wakko with the things you see on the HSN And infomericals where they're inventing special hangers that drop down to give you extra closet space ect. The more inventions we get the less over all new ideas you're going to see. Sooner or later people are going to start coming up with new ideas for other inventions or new uses for them ect and that is when you start running into copyright problems.

    I think there should be a way for somone who's come up with a new idea that isn't TOTALLY new to be able to create it without getting sued by everyone who he built off of. It is true that if you're going to limit peoples use of existing patents in creating a new invention you're going to stifle creavitiy and inventions.

    But in this case the patent isn't an invention or anything useful it's just a word and this guy is sueing everyone who uses the word Edge in anything they sell it's just a bit insane I think everyone can agree on this :P Regardless of the type of government something needs to be done to stop people from sueing other companies over something as stupid as this and wasting tax payers money running court cases for this idiot.

    • James G says:

      Can we please not get our terminology crossed. What we are talking about in the case of EDGE isn’t a patent, it is a trademark. While both are part of IP law, the rules and purposes are different.

    • Railick says:

      Terminology serminology, you knew exactly what I meant no reason to be coming after me with your pedantic corrections to the words I used when I’m not disagreeing with you.

    • James G says:

      Sorry, that wasn’t my intent. Its just that in the past I’ve seen such discussions derailed by confusion over exactly what people were talking about. (Incidently, I’ve just realised that the ‘we’ could be seen as patronising. It wasn’t supposed to be directed at you alone, perhaps I shouldn’t have used the reply function.)

    • Railick says:

      I’m just messing with you man ; ) No worries.

    • Railick says:

      Yeck, double posting is getting bad in this thread.

      Shadowcat “It hammers at my retinas like an evil woodpecker of pure energy”

  8. TheSaw says:

    “That’s part of it. I think people have a right to profit from their creations, and someone who designs a machine that cures cancer certainly deserves to profit more than does a farmer, despite the fact that one creates something tangible while the other is just an idea.”

    What exactly was the engineer eating during the years he was inventing this anti-cancer machine? That’s right, food grown by the farmer. I know you’ve been indoctrinated to believe that rare skills should be venerated with excessive wealth, but the reality is that food needs to be grown, garbage needs to be hauled, filth needs to be cleaned, and a thousand other jobs need to be done in a society that are just as important as the R&D done by scientists, inventors, etc.

    Once you understand this basic fact of civilization you’ll understand that the wealth generated from said endeavor should be shared among it’s participants, not hoarded by those with rare skills.

    • Railick says:

      Are you saying that an individual farmer should be paid the same as a engineer that creates an anti-cancer machine? I find fault in your argument, anyone can farm there is no skill required other than being able to physically do it, garbage collection is also unskilled labor. However this engineer has spend years of his life and plenty of money going to school and obtaining his knowledge ect. His brain is rare allowing him to retain and understand all this knowledge and actually use it for something. He spent years running tests ect confirming his ideas and finally has created this item while all the while they farmer keeps farming doing nothing with his life but toiling on some soil. How does he deserve the same reward as the person that spent his life dedicating himself to knowledge and the advancement of all mankind?

      I agree with you that farmers and garbage collectors are valuable but only as a whole compared to this one person that has created a single object that will save the lives of billions of people over its life time. A single farmer will only produce so much food but this one person has single handedly ended a scourge against all man-kind O.o The farmer will share the benefits from his hard work when he is cured from cancer in his old age ;)

    • Tore says:

      ” He spent years running tests ect confirming his ideas and finally has created this item while all the while they farmer keeps farming doing nothing with his life but toiling on some soil. How does he deserve the same reward as the person that spent his life dedicating himself to knowledge and the advancement of all mankind?”

      How is “toiling the same soil”, which I assume is producing food, the same as “doing nothing with his life”? Alexander Fleming discovered penicilin, something which arguably is up there with the green revoluion and Pasteur’s innovation when it comes to lives saved. He did this by forgetting to put agar plates in the fridge so that they were covered by moldue when he came back from holiday. He noticed that one certain type of moldue, penicilin, killed germs. How is this revolutionary discovery worthy of more praise than someone working their entire lives farming produce?

      Even if it wouldn’t have been a mistake, the utilitarian consequence of an action is not necessarily the same as the action’s worth (Dr. Mengele being the extreme case in point), and many moral philosphies, from Aristoteles to Kant recognize that people can excel in their field and that it is not by the consequences of their actions that they acquire worth or virtue, a notion which has trickled down from the greeks to christian theology to the U.N Charter.

    • Psychopomp says:

      “The farmer will share the benefits from his hard work when he is cured from cancer in his old age”

      Like he’d be able to afford it. He’d die in pain and poverty.

  9. TheSaw says:

    I think you and I agree completely Railick. To summarize our points:

    - Only people that desire to study, research, experiment, etc. should do so; so that they do not consider the years spent in these pursuits wasted.
    - People that choose the course outlined above should not be put into debt to profiteers to do so.
    - In return for sharing food from the farmer, shelter by the community, etc. the inventor in question should be more than happy to also share the fruits of his life’s labor.

    It feels so good to reach common ground.

    • Starky says:

      I’ll tell you something for a fact… I wouldn’t be studying to become a qualified electrical engineer if it didn’t give me the chance to earn more money.

      I left school with decent GCSE’s (10 years ago), and went straight into work, I got into a Electrical Engineering company as Tech support plus data entry (small company, tech support wasn’t enough work to fill half a day, never mind a full one), and I was and still am a computer nerd.

      10 years later (and 3 company changes), I’m earning 20k a year, as a unqualified electrical engineer – I basically do a LOT of math and a lot of CAD, simply because I was the computer nerd who (thanks honestly to years of messing around with hammer, and other game SDKs and 3D software such as lightwave and Max) knew more about how to use AutoCAD then any of the engineers.
      At first it was simply copying drafted plans into CAD, then I started simply designing them myself, with the Engineers checking and correcting my work as I went, until eventually I was simply handing the plans to the engineers complete, no hand holding along the way needed.

      Now I’m going to Uni to do a Masters of Engineering, because with a degree and 10 years of experience I’ll be able to earn a LOT more than 20k a year.

      There’s no way in HELL I’d pay out 40k and spend 4-5 years studying my arse off if it wasn’t going to mean much brighter future prospects and higher earning potential.

      If I could earn as much money as a security guard sitting on my arse 12 hours a night, 4 nights a week (which I did for a while, after one of the companies I worked for collapsed) reading a book, or listening to my mp3 player, only needing to wander around the site once every 2 hours… I would, and I wouldn’t bother with study and education.

    • medwards says:

      @Starky: It sounds more like your situation is one of trying to not be exploited anymore. I have an aunt in a similar situation where she is essentially an engineer without the salary, but it should be clear that this is a situation perpetuated by the company and the engineering associations rather than there being necessarily more intrinsic worth to a fancy piece of paper. I mean you’re able to do the job, so you should be paid appropriately. I don’t think that is too much to ask.

  10. nayon says:

    TheSaw, Railick, and others, do you guys have a PhD? Or are you on a path to get one? Please do not think you know anything. Unless you are working for/have one, you have no idea what kind of effort it takes.

    I also know the life of the farm. Put any person into a farm, and they will perform an average job. Put an average person into a graduate program and they will fail miserably.

    Also, research and development is not the same thing as invention, and invention isn’t the thing you guys make it out to be. Pasteur coming up with penicillin might have been a random discovery, but not every discovery works like that. Also, it takes an educated person to recognize such a mold as useful, but that is beside the point.

    You are forgetting one thing, medicine and other stuff don’t just cost money because they’re selling ideas. Research and development is expensive, because equipment and testing are expensive. Raising people to understand and apply the processes of research and development are expensive.

    You want to get down to brutal pragmatism? A farmer dies, and his experience is lost, but he is replaced by a farmer that somehow gets the job done. A scientist dies, and his knowledge dies with him. You have to start over to achieve his level. I know a few Professors whose accumulated knowledge are so vast and unbelievable, they are truly irreplaceable people, because when faced with a problem in research, you bring together lots of complicated information and somehow make sense of it, the more knowledge you have the better.

    Want more pragmatism? A life of manual labor is keeping the status quo. A life of research is constantly improving yourself, constantly learning.

    Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately, who knows?), we are born into a world where people are not equal. You have to accept that. Also you have to accept that some things are harder to achieve than other things.

    Let me ask you this, if you are hungry and desperate, can you grow your own food? Sure, even I do it. If you have cancer, can you cure it yourself? Good luck.

    Hell, forget cancer. If it were not for science, we would be dying from a cold like a few centuries ago.

    Do not underestimate the value of science. I am not underestimating the value of food, but I know how to grow my own food to be self-sufficient enough.

    Some of you guys quoted philosophers. Well, two can play this game. Read up on any great philosopher. Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Descartes, Locke, you name it. What do they talk about? Truth, knowledge, and how to obtain it. Do they talk about necessities like obtaining food? No. They talk about ideals, a higher goal that all humans should strive. For them, life is not about farming but it is about knowledge. Remember that in Plato’s Republic the men of greatest value are Philosophers.

    It is not possible to have a system in which everyone is treated as equals, because they aren’t. Let me put it in a way you would be able to relate to, instead of reciting blind ideology. Even you guys do it all the time, with all your hate against console gamers and whatnot. You deem yourselves “better” than them. Now if one day the game makers come and tell you, “You have no more dedicated servers, you are equal in our eyes, no even worth less than console gamers, the PC which you have faithfully adhered to for years is junk compared to a shiny XBox”, would you be happy?

    I guess not. It’s easy to blurt out canned phrases of pseudo-socialist nonconformism, but sheesh, get an idea. That’s not how the world works. If anything, you are being disrespectful towards people who do years of research to bring you your luxurious life.

    Don’t like scientists or intellectual property? Say goodbye to your computers, televisions, books, musical instruments, refrigerators, laundry machines, dishwashers, mp3 players, video games, the music you listen to, the tools and machines farmers use, the devices that process that food and bring it to you, and many, many other things.

    It’s easy to be an armchair cynic. Try living without a computer or the internet, then maybe you would appreciate their value, and the tons of research that went into them.

    Yes, this is long, brutal and offensive; just like life.

    • nayon says:

      By the way, in no way am I defending Tim Langdell. He is a bottom feeder, trying to earn money without actually working hard.

    • Tei says:

      “… and others, do you guys have a PhD? Or are you on a path to get one? Please do not think you know anything. Unless you are working for/have one, you have no idea what kind of effort it takes.”

      http://www.ultimate-self.com/entitlement/

      No one owe you anything. If you wasted N years of your life on the university, or somewhere, because is fun or what you want, more power to you, but no one owe you anything. Also, “Arguments from authority” are a logical falacy. Is magical thinking.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
      I don’t care about your name, your friends, your studies, you published works, your income, your race, your popularity, your beard, your tastes, your phobias.. what I care is about what you say. If what you say is verifieable, and If once verified is correct. Not a stupid CV.

    • medwards says:

      @Tei: lol
      @Nayon: hooo… where to start.
      No I am no longer pursuing a Masters. Leaving aside the assumption that all inventors are only Masters and Doctorates, there is the implicit assumption that you’re all good at what you do. There are some exceptional people doing research. There are also coasters and people who I wonder why they even bother. I decided I liked application more so I moved into the industry where I make good coin without waving around paper like it means my penis is bigger. Moving on (I’m going to experiment with the quoting so bear with me):

      Pasteur coming up with penicillin might have been a random discovery

      Please tell me you are not in the Faculty of Science. This is just sloppy, but I guess your paper and massive ego mean that this is totally A-OK and doesn’t undermine your legitimacy at all.

      You are forgetting one thing, medicine and other stuff don’t just cost [snip blah blah blah aboud R&D costs]

      Please stop re-posting ‘common-sense’ I thought you were a researcher? You haven’t provided anything to dispute this http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf
      This tired old horse of “Protect teh pharma!” is… well, tired. Have something new to contribute, thats the point of your fucking degree. Oh, but you just think we’re all anti-science here. Which is almost equivalently as stupid considering the only people arguing about killing all innovation are people building straw man arguments. And if you could stop conflating the posters where with the console-haters crowd, that’d be cool. I’ve never had a problem with the console market share, I just can’t use a controller worth shit for a shooter so I’d prefer a PC version. But y’know, keep up the solid logical and scientific arguments. It looks like its working out great so far.

  11. Starky says:

    I’ll tell you something for a fact… I wouldn’t be studying to become a qualified electrical engineer if it didn’t give me the chance to earn more money.

    I left school with decent GCSE’s (10 years ago), and went straight into work, I got into a Electrical Engineering company as Tech support plus data entry (small company, tech support wasn’t enough work to fill half a day, never mind a full one), and I was and still am a computer nerd.

    10 years later (and 3 company changes), I’m earning 20k a year, as a unqualified electrical engineer – I basically do a LOT of math and a lot of CAD, simply because I was the computer nerd who (thanks honestly to years of messing around with hammer, and other game SDKs and 3D software such as lightwave and Max) knew more about how to use AutoCAD then any of the engineers.
    At first it was simply copying drafted plans into CAD, then I started simply designing them myself, with the Engineers checking and correcting my work as I went, until eventually I was simply handing the plans to the engineers complete, no hand holding along the way needed.

    Now I’m going to Uni to do a Masters of Engineering, because with a degree and 10 years of experience I’ll be able to earn a LOT more than 20k a year.

    There’s no way in HELL I’d pay out 40k and spend 4-5 years studying my arse off if it wasn’t going to mean much brighter future prospects and higher earning potential.

    If I could earn as much money as a security guard sitting on my arse 12 hours a night, 4 nights a week (which I did for a while, after one of the companies I worked for collapsed) reading a book, or listening to my mp3 player, only needing to wander around the site once every 2 hours… I would, and I wouldn’t bother with study and education.

    • Starky says:

      Eh…? Weird double post one in a reply one not, how the hell did I do that?

    • medwards says:

      It’s because the comment system is brutally buggy, but its so inconsistently buggy that its impossible to actual cite specific issues. Forgive those who have re-posted and you too shall be forgiven!

  12. Santiago says:

    I´m pretty sure you´re not mistaking the exploits of the system with the system itself, because if you have an issue with the intellectual property system, you have an issue with the general private property system, and if so, I´m completely sure you´d be happy to share your home and food with every hobo knocking at your door in a cold winter night…

  13. Frank says:

    That’s all well and good, but you guys are forgetting the main point: this Langdell guy’s an ass.

  14. Anonymous says:

    medwards +1

  15. Philip says:

    When I first saw this post I thought it would be the owners of Edge magazine that would be the people suing, because that’s the brand I think of when I hear the word “Edge” used in terms of intellectual property.

    Have Edge magazine paid this guy royalties…?

  16. Wanoah says:

    Surely the stock response to these frivolous lawsuits without merit from this Langdell character should be: “we refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971)”

  17. mrrobsa says:

    I’m wiping tears of laughter away. The penny didn’t immediately drop and I’m sat thinking FEDGE sounds stupid!
    Excellent work indie devs! I’m off for another round of CANABEDGE.

  18. Dr. Bacon says:

    Tim Langdell is un-be-fuck!ng-lievable – that’s for sure.

    Anyway, I’ve also done MY part part to step on him, by remaking an old game from The Edge Software.

    It’s called ‘Starbike’ – originally released for the ZX Spectrum in 1984 and you can find it here:

    http://starbike.wordpress.com

  19. amishmonster says:

    Nice change to the site alt-title today – I like the support.

  20. DennisApril34 says:

    One acknowledges that men’s life is high priced, but we need cash for various things and not every one gets big sums money. Therefore to get quick loan or just credit loan will be a proper solution.

  21. 9squirrels says:

    Need a game called “Edgetastic Edgventure” in fact Edgeward McEdgington should be “Edgeward McEdgington’s Edgetastic Edgventure”.