It was no doubt clear to readers that my Eurogamer article on Mobigame vs Tim Langdell was to be far from the last word on the story. In the weeks following the article’s publication, the drama has shifted to new stage, that of the International Game Developers Association (IGDA), one of the videogame industry’s only global representing bodies, where Langdell has been serving as a board member since March 2009.

As more details of Langdell’s dubious claims have come to light so an increasing proportion of the IGDA membership has become disgruntled, adding volume to a call for a members’ vote to have him removed from his position on the board.

The IGDA has responded slowly to the issue, but on August 28th finally sent an e-mail to members, announcing a Special Meeting to be held on October 3rd, 2009. The purpose of the meeting, the e-mail stated, was to vote on whether “IGDA Board of Directors member Tim Langdell (a) should serve the remainder of this term, or (b) should have his term concluded early.”

However, yesterday Langdell announced his resignation from the IGDA, negating the need for the Special Meeting and signalling a small victory for those who have been campaigning tirelessly for his forced removal from the position. Today, Langdell, posting on the IGDA forum under the username ‘EDGE’ made a statement (in a locked thread, preventing members from contesting his awkward spin), saying: “I make this decision not because I have done anything wrong but because I cannot permit this process [to] irreparably damage the IGDA.”

The news of Langdell’s resignation is undoubtedly good news for the IGDA, which has suffered through association this past two months. The resignation divorces the Edge Games vs. Mobigame issue from the internal politics of the IGDA, allowing the organisation to begin to address its own problems free of the controversy. Whether it’s too little, too late remains to be seen. The organisation’s credibility has, in the eyes of many, undoubtedly been damaged, perhaps irrevocably.

But again, this is just the close of a middle chapter of the Langdell narrative. The groundswell of interest in the story which has, for example, motivated one forum user to compile an exhaustive spreadsheet of Langdell’s dubious trademark activities, undoubtedly rises all the way up to companies who have been wronged in the past.

However, for the likes of Future Publishing and EA, Langdell’s activities pose an irritation rather than a bona fide financial threat to business. The associations he attempts to draw between his company and Edge magazine may tarnish Future’s brand, but they don’t threaten it. The question then is whether the moral imperative is enough to spur these companies into costly legal action against Langdell and his trademark claims. I suspect not but, either way, we’re still a long way from this story’s conclusion.