Tim Langdell Loses In Future “Edge” Trial

It didn't fall far short of this.

Not a lot has been heard from trademark champion Tim Langdell in a while. The lawyer-happy supreme owner of the word “edge” was the palm-faced talk of the town in 2009 and 2010 (never better covered than by the excellent Chaos Edge), but his antics have been a little more quiet of late. This is likely to do with his not doing particularly well in his increasingly ludicrous attempts to claim ownership of a noun. And in the latest ruling, from Future Publishing’s case against Edge Interactive Media Inc., Edge Games Inc, and Dr Timothy Langdell, it’s observed that the nontrepreneur’s evidence was “absurd”, and he had even gone so far as to invent people to sign his witness statements. And so much more besides. Read on for an extensive breakdown of the judge’s conclusions. It’s a remarkable tale.

Future had charged Langdell and his various companies with breach of contract, breach of copyright, and passing off.

Mrs Justice Proudman, in her ruling for the High Court, explained that,

“I am satisfied that EIM and Games Inc are controlled exclusively by Dr Langdell. A “Jack Phillips” has occasionally put his name to witness statements on behalf of EIM in the past but he is not mentioned at all by Dr Langdell in his evidence and I suspect (without making any findings in this respect) that the claimant is right in saying that he does not exist and is an invention of Dr Langdell.”

While Langdell has often attempted to make it look as though his various companies are made up of a number of employees, the judge has no truck with that, concluding that he’s the only person involved in any of them, and is recognised as the sole defendant for all of them. Meanwhile she concludes that Future’s EDGE magazine is, “plainly a substantial enterprise engendering a substantial following and substantial respect in the gaming industry,” going on to recognise the distinctive nature of its logo since 1993. Not a strong starting point for our friend.

Rather brilliantly, Justice Proudman’s conclusions recognise that Langdell’s games development days only spanned the 1980s and 1990s, not crediting him with having developed anything since – something Langdell has gone to some extraordinary lengths to obfuscate. Games that never quite seem to exist as much as Langdell promises, and bear uncanny resemblances to other games.

It’s important to note that this wasn’t just petty trademark disputing from Future, either. Langdell has made some remarkable claims about EDGE magazine, including that it was “spawned from” his own company. He even claimed to be publishing a US version of the magazine, offering this extraordinary mock-up of a cover (via Chaos Edge):

The judge observes quite how similar Langdell’s “EDGE” logo is to Future’s, then goes on to recognise that Langdell has become “notorious” for “pursuing third parties using the name Edge for licence fees, failing which he pursues them for damages for trade mark infringement.” Despite Langdell’s rather ironic plea that this action from Future was “unnecessary”, since he had met their demands ahead of the serving, the judge that it is all “wholly reasonable that the claimant should bring the action.” Especially since Langdell’s claims of having relented are characteristically distant from the truth. Justice Proudman points out that a letter from Langdell’s solicitors in June 2009 read,

“The EDGE logo has been used by our clients for many years and they will not cease using it because they are entitled to use it.”

Oops. And it gets even better. Justice Proudman adds,

“I am unable to find unequivocal undertakings in the correspondence, despite Dr Langdell’s assertions that they were given. Further, Dr Langdell continued to contend before me that he was entitled to continue to use the EDGE logo and that he intended to do so.”

Claims that because his font was Franklin Gothic, it meant it wasn’t the same and should be considered “original”, were swiftly batted aside. Langdell then went on to claim that Future’s “Mr Pierce” (who can surely only be former Gamer ed, Matt Pierce) had given him permission to use the logo in 2005. When Pierce pointed out that no such discussion had ever taken place, Langdell did not provide any serious challenge. This too was rejected.

The good doctor seemed to take as many nonsensical approaches to defending his use of the EDGE logo as possible, also arguing that because he “copied” it on a letterhead to Future, that this was an “estoppel representation“, which even the judge can’t seem to be bothered to fathom. And then, despite having admitted to copying it, and claiming to have been given permission to use it, he brilliantly asserts that he also invented it in 1991! Future, it seemed, “consciously or unconsciously” copied it two years later when they launched the magazine. This was somewhat scuppered when Future produced the original designer of the logo, and Langdell had nothing useful to say to defend against that. This is also not particularly helped by the real “Edge” logo he was using in 1990, which in fact looks like this. Or this.

However, Langdell had produced some floppy discs which stored logo, as evidence that it pre-existed the magazine. He claimed that the logo had been published on a “single page catalogue” and a flysheet he used at trade shows, but when asked to show a physical copy said that there was, er, “scarcity of use” pre 1993. But those discs – he’d saved “catalogue” and flysheet onto 5.25″ disc in 1991. He was home free! But wow, it was about to get brilliant.

The disc was too delicate to be shipped to the UK, said Dr Tim. Despite it already having been sent across the Atlantic twice. The court ordered him to send it over. And thus Langdell sent the disc to an expert, Mr Steggles of Disklabs, who verified that the disc was indeed from 1991, and said that in his opinion it was “genuinely created at that time.” Surely Langdell was finally onto a winner? Except, well, Future’s expert, Mr Dearsley of Kroll Computers, pointed something out. The content had been created by Windows 95.


Dearsley also pointed out that the content had been “deliberately backdated”, and old Steggles was forced to agree that the disc, in fact, could not be from 1991.

But oopsie! Langdell said the disc had been sent in error! This one was a copy he’d created in the mid-1990s for a reason he couldn’t remember. You know, all those people using 5.25″ floppies in the mid 90s to back up a flier they’d made in 1991 that no one had ever seen. I’ll let Justice Proudman continue.

“He then produced an involved and absurd story about how he had found two disks in a box in 2009, one of which was a mid-90s back up disk (“disk 2”) and the other of which, (disk 1) was used to clone the original. He said he took the two disks to a “repair man” and mixed them up by marking the wrong one. His oral evidence did not tally with his witness statement and his evidence about the boxes in which he allegedly found disk 1 and disk 2 was confused and unpersuasive.”

But what about the rather suspicious backdating of the images? Did he do that in the mid-90s too? Yes he did! He wanted the disc 1 clone to be “as close as possible to the original”, but couldn’t quite find the words to explain why. Then a few months later, brilliantly, Langdell found a disc 3, this time definitely the original 1991 disc, even though that was disc 2 and had been lost. The judge adds, “I found his evidence confusing under this head; it is possible that disk 2 and disk 3 were supposed to be one and the same.” And as Future’s expert pointed out, armed with the information on how he’d proven disc 1 was a fake, it would be easy for Langdell to fake a disc 3. He claimed he was “technically incompetent to do such a thing”, which is an odd claim for one of the leading software developers of the 21st century, and the judge called bollocks.

Langdell went further with his deception, producing a “long and tortuous explanation of the emails” he sent to his chosen disc expert. But somehow managed to produce an email response from Steggles to a message the expert had never received. Langdell had invented an email that talked about this “clone” disc in hindsight, to try to cover those tracks. The judge said, “I have no doubt not merely that it was not received but that it was never in fact sent. The overwhelming inference is that the suspect Steggles email was concocted as support for Dr Langdell’s story that he had created a cloned disk.” To make things absolutely clear she summarises,

“Dr Langdell’s story is incredible. The truth is a prosaic one, namely that Dr Langdell concocted disk 1 in support of his claim that he had invented the EDGE logo in 1991. When this was exposed by the claimant’s expert he constructed an elaborate explanation and created disk 3, having learned from the Report how to avoid the mistakes he made the first time.”

At this point I begin to feel a bit sorry for Langdell. To have told so many lies, and to have weaved yourself so thickly in bullshit for so many years, it must be terrifying when it all starts to unravel. He’s clearly a very sorry man, and the exposure of his incompetence, while undeniably gratifying, actually descends quickly into the pathetic. And his continued avoidance of the truth got him into even more trouble in the hearing.

Langdell had refused to let the court read the “without prejudice” correspondence between Langdell and Future prior to the trial. Future had expressed they’d be fine with it, but Dr L wanted it kept from the judge. Future lawyers pointed out that the discs had only been mentioned just before the proceedings had started, his claimed evidence having been described as existing in a paper form before then. Langdell then, rather stupidly, went on to claim that he had made reference to these discs on which his evidence was stored numerous times in this unseen correspondence. He was stating that Future were outright lying. Which the court saw as a waiver in his right to keep the correspondence from the court, and it became available. And of course contained no mention of any discs.

Amazingly Langdell then produced two emails sent to him on 2nd October 2009 and 23rd February 2010 that were sent to him, he claimed, by Future’s lawyers and contained mentions of the disc. He said that Future had left these out “deliberately and dishonestly”. But this happened during the closing submissions of the case, and the judge was in a predicament. Langdell had returned to the States, and arranging a new court hearing for this new supposed evidence – which would, Proudman points out, support Langdell’s case for the discs as evidence – would be “no easy task”, and neither side wished for the case to continue. So Justice Proudman chose not to reopen the matter, based on Future’s having carried out a full search of its IT systems to find these missing emails, and no such thing appearing. Langdell has not offered to do the same, and won’t let Future examine the digital evidence. Their last minute appearance, dubious authenticity, led the judge to believe that they were never sent at all. And Langdell didn’t even manage to get the format to match Future’s own emails, while they looked suspiciously similar to the suspect email to Steggles and others he seemingly cooked up. The judge says that while she cannot make a ruling of forgery, but she heavily implies it.

Oh, and there’s more. Langdell claimed he had unregistered rights to “EDGE” in 1993 and attempted legal action against Future when EDGE magazine appeared. And then that he applied for the trademark in February 1994, which he managed to pay for by December 1996, by which point Future had applied for it too. Impressively, Langdell managed to get £20,000 from Future for the rights to use the name, royalty free, on the magazine. But this included prohibiting Langdell’s Edge Interactive Media (EIM) from publishing a magazine similar to EDGE, under the same name, or same logo. He was also prohibited from claiming any association or connection with EDGE magazine or Future. Which isn’t exactly what he stuck with.

After he made enough of a pain in the arse of himself, Future bought the rights from him completely. In 2004 Future paid EIM $250,000 and Langdell $25,000 (although as the judge points out, both payments went into Langdell’s personal bank account). After much nonsense about the clauses within those agreements that have no bearing on the matter in hand, the case gets around to pointing out that Langdell was deliberately using EDGE magazine’s logo to suggest he was involved.

“I have no doubt that the defendants deliberately adopted a logo which is an obvious replica of the claimant’s EDGE mark. I was taken to many examples and I mention only the following. The version on the home page of EIM’s website in June 2010. A version used in July 2010 on EIM’s page on the Café press website. A version used on a letterhead in 2008 and 2009. (Dr Langdell accepted in cross-examination that the logo adopted on his letterhead for the purposes of a letter to the claimant’s solicitors was a deliberate copy.) A version used on the homepage of EIM’s website between 2003/4 and June 2009. A version used on EIM’s game Mythora. Versions used on the game Bobby Bearing.”

Dr Langdell even admitted in cross-examination that he had done this deliberately to create an association with Future’s magazine.

“He said he believed he had the right to do so but that was on the basis of his assertion, which I have already rejected, that he himself devised the EDGE logo in 1991. The logo was adopted to indicate Dr Langdell’s entire business including his own games business and I reject his claim that he only used it on his webpage to promote the claimant’s magazine.”

The judge then goes on to list a few examples of when Langdell has claimed direct association with EDGE magazine, so far as listing it as part of his company’s services, including in a letter to Apple.

Which brings us onto the most significant part of this all. Justice Proudman found that Langdell’s breaches of the agreement with Future were “fundamental”, which has huge implications. It in fact means that Langdell can no longer benefit from the arrangements made with Future, that allowed him to continue using the EDGE trademark in various ways, and prevented Future from using “EDGE” in association with anything other than magazines. In fact, she ruled that Langdell’s abysmal reputation was so bad that it was causing damage to Future merely by the implied association,

It is also concluded that Langdell has, “tried to appropriate for his own business the goodwill associated with EDGE Magazine by statements leading the public to believe that EIM is responsible for EDGE Magazine or that EIM’s games are in some way approved or authorised by EDGE Magazine.” He was also found to have infringed Future’s copyright of the EDGE logo. Claims that EIM and Edge Games make over £100,000 in the UK each year were also ridiculed, pointing out the only evidence Langdell could supply for any UK sales were orders placed by Future! Orders from which they received no products. Also receiving nothing were the courts, when they asked for accounts and evidence of EIM’s income, and indeed documents Langdell claimed to be providing failed to be included in packages with cover letters purporting their existence. Langdell waited until immediately before the court date to offer his UK sales figures, when it was too late to investigate them, and even then supplied no evidence to support them. He couldn’t even find anyone who had bought a copy of his games to testify. And those weren’t the only files that went missing. Over and over again Justice Proudman cites examples where evidence Langdell claims to have sent has not been received, and indeed documents sent to him by recorded delivery that he claims not to have seen.

And there’s one last punchline to it all. In attempting to provide evidence that EIM and Edge Games were making money in the UK, Langdell (along with providing an incredibly recent invoice for a company called Creative Distribution Ltd. in Croydon, but unable to remember any pertinent details about the order) offered emails to and from one Randall Copland, of his UK licensee Velocity Micro Inc. (for whom I’m only able to find a US website). In these Copland appears to reply saying of the sales figures for Edge and Gamer’s Edge products from 2006 to 2009, “The figure is way over $1m for each year”.

The trouble was, when Copland was asked about this in court he said that the emails bore little in common with those that were really sent. The undoctored emails reveal a slightly different sales figure for the time period: nothing whatsoever. Despite some spurious claims that he thought this information was incorrect, Langdell opted not to cross examine Copland. Oddly enough.

Justice Proudson says, in conclusion:

“The claimant therefore succeeds in establishing all claims pursued at trial.”

Quite how Langdell hasn’t been found in contempt of court for his actions I’m not sure. But then I have no clue how the process works. What we can learn from this, however, is that stuff catches up with you. It’s a pitiful sight, seeing a man realise that saying things for years doesn’t mean they’re true, and his subsequent desperate attempts to find/create evidence. But no matter how sad it all may be, I don’t think anyone can take anything away from the highlight moment, the revealing that his 1991 disc with its 1991 files were created with Windows 95. I’ll treasure that one.

Thank you so much to Dan Paul for letting us know about this, and to the amazing people behind Chaos Edge for their comprehensive work.


  1. Gotem says:

    And then there was much rejoycing

  2. Novotny says:


  3. Web Cole says:

    Oh sweet music :D

  4. Marcin says:

    That was truly an amazing story. I think by the end my face was so twisted by sheer disbelief I had to read upside down.

  5. MiniMatt says:

    It now must be clear that RPS’ subtitle “PC gaming since 1873” is actually a false history attempting to show an earlier use of the Rock Paper Shotgun brand.

    I actually invented the game “Rock Paper Shotgun” back in 1874 and the fact no witnesses survive to attest the fact proves the matter – eventually every witness I could potentially bring forward has at some point found themselves taking a piece of paper or a rock to what was clearly a shotgun fight.

    • Teddy Leach says:

      You foolish upstart! Your manner of speech is far too forward and vulgar for you to have possibly been alive in fair 1874. All gentlemen of good stead are aware that I, Theodore Leach, am the true proprietor of the Rock, the Paper, and the Shotgun.

      Have at you, impudent pup! Geoffrey, fetch me my duelling trousers at once!

    • The Dark One says:

      ..no, not those, those are my time travel trousers.

    • Mr_Initials says:

      Sir, your dueling trousers are being cleaned after that nasty business with Gentleman Richmond and that filthy foreigner.

  6. _Jackalope_ says:

    What a numpty. I look forward to him being sued by all the other people who’s creativity he’s tried to make a quick buck from.

  7. Tiddler says:

    Bravo sir, bravo! I wondered the other day what had happened to the wee runt.

    He’s shown himself not only to be a liar but a terrible one at that. I feel sorry for future having paid him for the rights to use the name, $275,000 is a hell of a lot to lose to such a con man.

    • Premium User Badge

      DollarOfReactivity says:

      That’s the worst part of it for me; that he somehow made a quarter million dollars with his conniving. Seems like a little audit on Tim and EIM/GI would be revealing…

    • MiniMatt says:

      Or a visit from the inland revenue requesting back taxes on several years worth of million dollar sales – either he really did make all that money from software sales and owes some tax, or he lied in court.

      Caught between lying to the tax man or a judge.

    • Malibu Stacey says:

      Oh that would be utterly evil. Just 4 years (2006 – 2009) of VAT at 17.5% would be £700,000.

      We can only hope someone from Future Publishing or the judge in this case has a quiet word with HMRC.

  8. Moni says:

    Excellent write-up, as usual, Mr. Walker.

    • royaltyinexile says:

      Very much this.

      Perhaps, I could have said the same, in fewer words, but this was an excellent write up, indeed.

  9. Premium User Badge

    ChaosSmurf says:

    That was… completely insane. Sad to see how easy it is for someone to just bareface lie for years and waste so much time (and even get money for it). Glad to see the end result.

  10. noom says:

    God I hate Tim Langdell.

    • Defiant Badger says:

      Really? I just pity him, like I’m sure a lot of people do. It’s quite sad to see a man cling on to something like this for years.

    • Teddy Leach says:

      No, sad is what happened to Mobigame because of him. This odious toad is getting what he deserves.

    • qrter says:

      Yeah, I can’t really feel sorry for Langdell either. His lying seems to border on the sociopathic, and he’s been using and abusing people for years, not just large corporations. The real sad thing is that it took so long for the larger companies like EA and Future to finally sue him.

    • Ilinx says:

      So pleased about this. And I reckon the most appropriate way to celebrate is to buy Mobigame’s Edge. Yay!

  11. Lilliput King says:

    This is my favourite bit:

    “In these Copland appears to reply saying of the sales figures for Edge and Gamer’s Edge products from 2006 to 2009, “The figure is way over $1m for each year”.

    The trouble was, when Copland was asked about this in court he said that the emails bore little in common with those that were really sent. The undoctored emails reveal a slightly different sales figure for the time period: nothing whatsoever.”


  12. skinlo says:

    Good good.

  13. Headache says:

    Best bedtime story ever!

  14. Dominic White says:

    Tim Langdell has been pissing off the games industry for longer than I’ve been alive – no joke, there’s games dating back to the early 80s with hidden messages about how much of a dick the guy is.

    It’s so good to see him torn apart at long last. Karma took a while to catch up (a whole generation, give or take) but it’s finally here.

  15. Premium User Badge

    Aerothorn says:

    I don’t know much about the British court system, but it seems if that had happened in the states he’d be convicted of perjury very quickly.

    • Soon says:

      I don’t understand why he wasn’t. They were all massive lies to the extent that it’s a more serious crime than what he’s trying to cover up. Craziness.

    • Masked Dave says:

      The only thing I could think is that as its a civil case rather than a criminal one, the charge would have to be raised against him separately by the CSP.

    • Starky says:

      Yup, the issue is that it is indeed a civil case rather than a criminal case and as such the legal system just can’t be bothered to pursue these things.

      For pretty good reason too, they cost the tax payer a bloody fortune and lying is so common in civil cases and the fines for getting caught so small to be trivial it isn’t worth the time/cost to the court.

      Still don’t think it will be forgotten, ANY civil legal case that Langdell ever finds himself involved with, especially in regards to any kind of patent or IP case will be almost impossible for him to win given his now legally documented history.

    • Malibu Stacey says:

      Jeffrey Archer was sentenced to 4 years in prison in 2000 for lying in a libel case vs the Daily Star in 1987. Not being a lawyer I don’t know how similar this is to a libel case but one can only hope Dr Langdell is similarly pursued in future.

  16. kastanok says:

    Finally, it’s over! Another bold-faced lying bastard thoroughly squashed.

  17. Inigo says:

    Justice Proudman cites examples where evidence Langdell claims to have sent has not been received

    At this point, one of Langdell’s legal team, a Mr. P. Potamus, left the courtoom while sobbing profusely.

    • Dominic White says:

      Being a UK site, this one is going to go over most peoples heads, but…

      Wow. Comment of the day, by far.

    • UnravThreads says:

      Dominic; How dare you! We have Adult Swim here too, you know ;)

      Haha, adult!

    • Icarus says:

      @Inigo, that was glorious.

  18. Dozer says:

    So, can Future get their $275,000 back now?

    Genuinely entertaining article John! I was laughing as I read most of it! Despite having never heard of Langdell before. Not related to the (former?) health secretary perhaps?

  19. Popish Frenzy says:

    Yeah but what if langdell invented a time machine and fixed it so that all his bs became true, wouldn’t we all look silly then.

  20. johnpeat says:

    I just want to use this bit of space to send a massive “WELL DONE FELLA(S?)” to the CHAOS EDGE creator(s?) – that site has been a major part of bringing some proper justice into this farcical situation…

    It’s a fantastic example of what, with a bit of focussed effort (instead of just pages of whining), the internet can achieve.

  21. kupocake says:

    If they hadn’t just axed drama, I’d be recommending rewriting this as a artsy TV script for BBC Four. It’s utterly ludicrous.

  22. Ergates_Antius says:

    At this point I begin to feel a bit sorry for Langdell
    I don’t, not even one tiny little bit. Langdell is a deeply deeply unpleasant individual. He fully deserves everything bad that happens to him as a consequence of his actions.

    Also, I disagree with: He’s clearly a very sorry man
    Nothing he has done or said displays even the smallest amount of remorse. Regretting getting caught isn’t the same as being sorry.

    Fuck Langdell. I hope he gets sent to jail, and then gets raped in the showers by a man with HIV.

    • El_MUERkO says:

      I think they say ‘sorry’ meaning ‘pathetic’ or ‘pitiful’ and not ‘apologetic’.

      I also have little sympathy for him.

      I’d only feel sorry for him if he was down a deep hole slowly filling with water.

    • Lilliput King says:

      Sorry as in sad, miserable, pathetic.

      i.e., “he’s a sorry sight”

    • John Walker says:

      That’s not the meaning of “sorry” I was using. Clearly he’s not contrite at all. Although I do not share any of your wishes for revenge.

    • Shih Tzu says:

      Wow, your moral high ground had a guardrail, a safety net, and an entire team of trained rescue personnel, and still you managed to tumble off of it.

    • JB says:

      The “very sorry man” bit didn’t mean remorseful, it meant a pitiful excuse for a human being.

    • Raiyan 1.0 says:

      Rape is hilarious, right OP?

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      OK, maybe the rape bit was excessive. But I do honestly think he should be in jail. Revenge has nothing do with it – he’s been lying, cheating and stealing for decades and (until now) has been getting away with it (and profiting nicely from it too). The only way he’s ever going to stop is if he is forced to.

      And no, rape isn’t funny. But neither is murder, so I bet you’ve never made or smiled at a throw away comment about killing someone either.

    • Scatterbrainpaul says:

      @Raiyan 1.0

      Rape is not a laughing matter, unless you’re being raped by a clown

      My mate has the above t-shirt, never did fully understand it

    • rabitjunk says:


      Everything, absolutely everything, is funny in the right context.

      That being said, you’re being pedantic.

  23. Ed says:

    The most confusing thing about this future trial is that it takes place entirely in the past

    • RakeShark says:

      It’s like Timesplitters, only with Tim Langdell…


  24. ffordesoon says:



  25. Jeeva says:

    I’m left speechless. Except to communicate that.

    …just… blimey.

  26. CMaster says:

    It’s possible that some of these rules don’t apply in civil actions like Future vs Langdell in the way that they would in a criminal case. However, I’m pretty sure in that telling I see (likley, but not yet proven):
    Contempt of Court
    Falsifying Evidence

    All of which can carry jail terms.

    • Starky says:

      They don’t apply in civil actions, well they can, but as you can see from the judgement, judges will almost never push the issue even though they know a person is lying, and could probably prove it.

      The punishment even should it be proven would only be minor fines – lying in a civil case carries no where near the level of punishment as lying in a criminal case.
      It isn’t worth the courts time spending tens of thousands of tax payers money to pursue a minor issue that might result in a fine of a few thousand at worst.

    • Herkimer says:

      I’m not sure how these things work in the UK system but, at least in the US, lying and falsifying evidence at trial is so common that it’s rarely prosecuted, whether the case is civil or criminal.

    • Soon says:

      It’s sad that it’s that way really. As it wasn’t just a lie to get away with a one off crime. But it was a lie that would have allowed him to continue acting in exactly the same way afterwards. It seems he was quite clever about it, though. The initial reaction is that, well, he must have been lying or he’d have won. But it was often a case of him saying he has proof, but it’s invisible, and you’ll have to prove it isn’t.

  27. Jimbo says:

    “But I developed Windows 95 in 1990!” – Tim Langdell as he was dragged off to the psych ward.

  28. TheJais says:


  29. kwyjibo says:

    Langdell has made hundreds of thousands of pounds from this scam. That should be fucking criminal. What a parasite.

    Sure, he won’t be playing the games industry any more. But he can already retire.

  30. Elmar Bijlsma says:

    So what is the actual result of this trail?
    The judgment is apparently a win for the claimants. But what was won?
    Seems to me Langdell is 275.000 ahead on the deal. And, amazingly, still not jailed.

    • Flappybat says:

      I was amazed they paid out so much cash. I can only assume this is why he does it, create a stir that they might not own the rights and take a lump sum so the company can avoid the hassle of a court case.

  31. Diziet Sma says:

    I sighed when I saw the headline and thought, oh god not more articles about Tim ‘Incompetent’ Langdell (in his own words no less)… can we not ignore this troll now or even better stick spears of law into his side until he dies.

    On the other hand, this was a highly amusing read. ta muchly for brightening what has otherwise been a dreary day.

  32. Napalm Sushi says:

    This guy’s behaviour has got to be pathological, in the same broad category as kleptomania. Mentally healthy people do not do things like this. It really was just sad by the end.

    • Monkey says:

      Desperate people do those things and worse

      He thought he could spend the rest of his life effectively blackmailing and defrauding hard working people. Langdell is simply showing the courts the same amount of respect he showed his targets.

  33. Josh Brandt says:

    I was just wondering what was up with Edge lately– I’m almost disappointed that it’s basically over. It’s been an entertaining soap opera. I suppose my amusement is less important than things like indie developers who want to make a game called Edge being able to do so without copyright trolls going after them.

    • RobF says:

      Oh, give it a couple of years I’m sure he’ll find a new angle on things. Given he’s been pulling stunts since the early eighties (there, I’m being polite) and even in the face of an overwhelming kicking still manages to wangle his way into and around things, I suspect this isn’t and won’t be the last we here of Timingtons McEdgyflaps.

  34. sinister agent says:

    and the judge called bollocks.

    Oh, if only that were a genuine court option.

    In fact, she ruled that Langdell’s abysmal reputation was so bad that it was causing damage to Future merely by the implied association,

    That is pretty devastating stuff.

    Great to hear that this poisonous little turd is finally being made to sit in the hole he’s dug for himself. I never thought I’d find myself rooting so hard for Future, but hats off to them here; they’ve really done the industry, and the world in general, a favour. And naturally they did so with the support of all those other people, too. Excellent work all round, really. Cheers for the writeup!

  35. Daiv says:

    Hey John, you missed out the part in which Tim Langdell claimed to be Emperor of the Moon and the bit where he insisted on being addressed as “His Excellency, Teapot III”, and the three days in which he wouldn’t answer any questions that didn’t rhyme.

  36. Cooper says:

    He wasn’t found in contempt of court, or accused directly of forgery, and so on, because it’s not worth the court’s time to bother with such a person. The judge probably presumed that the closing of the case in this manner, with all sorts of egg on Langdel’s face is enough to shut him up for good…

    We can hope…

  37. keith.lamothe says:

    I cannot help wondering why Justice Proudson did not see to it that charges were filed against Dr. Langdell after the Future case was dealt with.

    “Contempt of Court” would have been an obvious one, but I’m guessing she let it go out of pity for an obviously-mentally-unhealthy individual.

    But perjury is a different matter. Is it even discretionary to charge someone who actually perjures themselves _inside_ the courtroom? I’m guessing none of the deceptions were quite clear enough for that.

  38. arienette says:

    And good riddance.

  39. Bullfrog says:

    Incredible, I have no idea how someone could have the brass neck to (presumably) stand up in court and tell such brazen lies, let alone presenting evidence akin to a date stamped finger painting as crucial ‘evidence’. I envisage his closing statement to resemble him with hands over ears shouting ‘La la la, if I don’t hear it it can’t have happened!’.

  40. Blackberries says:

    Good show, everyone. Good show.

  41. Monkey says:

    So when exactly is he going to prison? Presumably pennyless

  42. JB says:

    “and the judge called bollocks” was my favourite bit for sure. I hope she really did. (I know she didn’t really)

  43. vanilla bear says:

    He would certainly be guilty of contempt of court, but I think either Future themselves (with the permission of the court, which would surely be granted) or the Attorney General have to actually bring those proceedings.

    (CPR r32.14: Proceedings for contempt of court may be brough against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth wihout an honest belief in its truth)

    I think the High Court can imprison for up to two years.

  44. roBurky says:

    What I find most shocking in this story, and that we didn’t know before, is that Tim Langdell really did get rich off his dishonest schemes. That’s rather disgusting.

    • Ginger Yellow says:

      I’m pretty sure the Edge (magazine) pay-off was public knowledge before this. Not sure if I read it on Chaos Edge or from the EA ruling, but it wasn’t news to me.

  45. Petethegoat says:


  46. nootron says:

    Its clear to me now that Dr. Langdell is the leading member of LulzSec and all this recent hacking is his way of acting out.

  47. Mike says:

    Utterly amazing. I do feel sorry for him, as you say, but I am glad that this has perhaps been put to bed once and for all. Phew.

  48. jonfitt says:

    It caught up to him in the end, but only after he made at least $295,000 out of it. I feel no pity for this liar.

  49. Colliwinks says:

    Speaking of Velocity Micro, notice the product advertised on their frontpage?