Psychotext
Member
Ridiculous. I'm frankly astonished that anyone thought this would be a good idea.
So embarrassing.
So embarrassing.
It seems you and I have different definitions for "substantial" in this context. But laugh and point all you will if it makes you (and Sony) feel better. Devoting time, attention, different units and a law firm on something like this is indeed a laughable cause.The fact that you think this constitutes "substantial resources" has the rest of us laughing and pointing at you.
It seems you and I have different definitions for "substantial" in this context. But laugh and point all you will if it makes you (and Sony) feel better. Devoting time, attention, different units and a law firm on something like this is indeed a laughable cause.
LOL Luke is the same one who got a news story (http://kotaku.com/5513192/there-are-too-many-damn-video-games) out of an infographic I made for one of my bitmob articles (http://bitmob.com/articles/the-death-of-the-video-game-expert). Did that sound catty? Because it's no hard feelings, I just would rather have his job!
and I remember Sony defence force just justifying Butler saying: he's just an actor!
Probably Sony doesn't think the same, apparently
Funnily enough I'm a lawyer. Maybe it's something unique to the US but I haven't come across these kind of retainer deals. It wouldn't make any sense, why pay third parties alongside your own legal department when they are not pursuing legal action?Multinational corporations have lawyers on retainer to deal with shit like this at all times. They get paid whether they are pursuing legal action or not. This particular situation is unlikely to have even registered as a blip in terms of billable hours, and as far as every involved party is probably concerned right now, the matter has been closed for weeks. All that's left is a lot of pointless wankery and schadenfreude from people who don't know what they're talking about on forums like NeoGAF.
The fact that you think this constitutes "substantial resources" has the rest of us laughing and pointing at you.
do we know whether or not Nintendo was involved in this promotion? It feels like it by just watching the commercial. If it was a joint promotion, then it seems like the Kevin Butler actor was working for Nintendo.
On an unrelated note, I wonder how Nintendo feels about All Stars. I can see Sony's rep getting uglier if this becomes bigger
All of this ridiculousness aside, when I first saw this commercial I couldn't help but think how odd it is that Bridgestone would be giving away Wiis at this stage in the console's life. It just seems strange. Sweepstakes are usually for relatively-new, buzzworthy items — not ones that have been around for six years that millions and millions of people already own.
As others have already pointed out or hinted at, there is one remaining angle to this story that seems worth pursuing, and that is who came up with the idea for this promotion in the first place?
If there's a chance Nintendo was the one who approached Bridgestone, just imagine the hilarious ways that could be interpreted
For example, Nintendo being pissed about PSABR comes up with the promotion knowing full well Lambert is currently part of the Bridgestone's campaign, and basically sets the whole thing up just to have Lambert promoting the Wii on national television! Why it would be a new record in corporate trolling
Its weird that I would not put this past Reggie - it sounds like something he'd do!
Its weird that I would not put this past Reggie - it sounds like something he'd do!
.Sony would never do something idiotic.
On phone so can't check but what are they actually suing for. An actor they use in their marketing acting in another bit of marketing as another character?
Mama Robotnik said:It makes the company come across as the most petty, incompetent, bullying and venomously litigious corporation in the entire games industry.
It's interesting that they are so trigger happy to sue actors and their own customers - easy targets of course, rather than someone who really deserves it such as Bethesda for releasing a faulty game, conspiring to mislead Sony's customers by providing only 360 code to reviewers, and genuinely tainting the PS3 brand. Bethesda is not such an easy target I imagine though - considering their own legal department is nearly as batshit insane rabid and threatened Notch with legal destruction of he didn't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for his wonton use of the word "Scrolls" without Bethesda's explicit consent.
I know that's a tangent, but it certainly shows how Sony's legal rottweilers like their easy targets.
I go away for a weekend when all is quiet. I discover the moment I get back that Sony's legal department have once again gone fucking batshit rabid.
From subpoenaing YouTube viewer IP addresses, demanding account information for Slashdot users, threatening to sue into oblivion any of their customers that posted the short series of letters and numbers that composed the PS3 security key - even after they tweeted it themselves, and the crushing of Lik Sang, Sony's legal department taints the brand. It makes the company come across as the most petty, incompetent, bullying and venomously litigious corporation in the entire games industry.
It's interesting that they are so trigger happy to sue actors and their own customers - easy targets of course, rather than someone who really deserves it such as Bethesda for releasing a faulty game, conspiring to mislead Sony's customers by providing only 360 code to reviewers, and genuinely tainting the PS3 brand. Bethesda is not such an easy target I imagine though - considering their own legal department is nearly as batshit insane rabid and threatened Notch with legal destruction of he didn't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for his wonton use of the word "Scrolls" without Bethesda's explicit consent.
I know that's a tangent, but it certainly shows how Sony's legal rottweilers like their easy targets.
- also it seems he hasn't don't any new adverts for Sony in 2 years?!? That's forever in his field. Let the guy do whatever, Sony.
I go away for a weekend when all is quiet. I discover the moment I get back that Sony's legal department have once again gone fucking batshit rabid.
From subpoenaing YouTube viewer IP addresses, demanding account information for Slashdot users, threatening to sue into oblivion any of their customers that posted the short series of letters and numbers that composed the PS3 security key - even after they tweeted it themselves, and the crushing of Lik Sang, Sony's legal department taints the brand. It makes the company come across as the most petty, incompetent, bullying and venomously litigious corporation in the entire games industry.
It's interesting that they are so trigger happy to sue actors and their own customers - easy targets of course, rather than someone who really deserves it such as Bethesda for releasing a faulty game, conspiring to mislead Sony's customers by providing only 360 code to reviewers, and genuinely tainting the PS3 brand. Bethesda is not such an easy target I imagine though - considering their own legal department is nearly as batshit insane rabid and threatened Notch with legal destruction of he didn't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for his wonton use of the word "Scrolls" without Bethesda's explicit consent.
I know that's a tangent, but it certainly shows how Sony's legal rottweilers like their easy targets.
It's beyond me why many seem to overlook that Sony most probably filed the suit because of the inclusion of Nintendo/Wii, their direct competitor, in the ad. After all, they did nothing when the previous Bridgestone ad was aired. Of course the accused party should have known better. But hey, it's another opportunity to smite Sony, so let's willfully dismiss that part completely, and try to make it seem like Sony is suing those involved for nothing.
Nobody's ignoring this - they just consider it a non-issue. Even if this WAS a non-compete lawsuit it's still an ad for Bridgestone, not the Wii. It's not some clear answer that you can say "Sony's right" at this time.
Secondly, whether or not they're in the right to sue, it's an incredibly laughable situation that Sony is bothering to sue their own spokesman. For a tiny little ad which nobody cared about, and they're just giving MORE attention to it and going "HEY YEAH THAT WAS KEVIN BUTLER HOLDING A WII COTROLLER IN THAT COMMERCIAL" when the whole promotion is already done now. Sony threw themselves into the ring for everyone to mock here.
And in any case they are suing for trademark infringement, not breach-of-contract. And as someone already pointed out (and it was pointed out again even!), the state of California invalidates non-compete clauses.
@JeffGrubb 9:59 AM
Sony comments on Kevin Butler case. Claims Bridgestone ad "creates confusion in the market" ...
Did John Koller state this?
They're going to use Youtube comments as examples aren't they?
Screens via Andrefvps
The problem is the assumption a contract was broken when there's zero evidence to that. When facts have to be completely fabricated on one end, I'd be more careful about crying "agenda".I can definitely see why some might consider it a non-issue, as it suits whatever agenda they might have better.
So, if there was a contract and he broke it, they should just let him get away with it?
Well I felt betrayed by this Kevin Butler person, or whatever his real name is. I traded in my Wii for a PS3 after his E3 speech. Then I go and see him whoring with Mario Kart, like he doesn't even care. I hope SCEA wins this case, maybe it'll stop people from lying, I don't know, but its a start
Well they have to when they're going for trademark infringement.@JeffGrubb 9:59 AM
Sony comments on Kevin Butler case. Claims Bridgestone ad "creates confusion in the market" ...
Did John Koller state this?
They're going to use Youtube comments as examples aren't they?
Screens via Andrefvps
Update: GamesBeat contacted Sony and the publishers senior director of corporate communications Dan Race sent us the following statement:
"Sony Computer Entertainment America filed a lawsuit against Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek, Inc. on September 11. The claims are based on violations of the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship. We invested significant resources in bringing the Kevin Butler character to life and hes become an iconic personality directly associated with PlayStation products over the years. Use of the Kevin Butler character to sell products other than those from PlayStation misappropriates Sonys intellectual property, creates confusion in the market, and causes damage to Sony."
No, they don't.So... they really believe it's "Kevin Butler" in that ad and not a "random Bridgestone lab worker"? Wow, they really think "Kevin Butler" is that important that other companies want to use him too?
The problem is the assumption a contract was broken when there's zero evidence to that. When facts have to be completely fabricated on one end, I'd be more careful about crying "agenda".
"Sony Computer Entertainment America filed a lawsuit against Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek, Inc. on September 11. The claims are based on violations of the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship."
They think the average consumer might think it is.
I go away for a weekend when all is quiet. I discover the moment I get back that Sony's legal department have once again gone fucking batshit rabid.
From subpoenaing YouTube viewer IP addresses, demanding account information for Slashdot users, threatening to sue into oblivion any of their customers that posted the short series of letters and numbers that composed the PS3 security key - even after they tweeted it themselves, and the crushing of Lik Sang, Sony's legal department taints the brand. It makes the company come across as the most petty, incompetent, bullying and venomously litigious corporation in the entire games industry.
It's interesting that they are so trigger happy to sue actors and their own customers - easy targets of course, rather than someone who really deserves it such as Bethesda for releasing a faulty game, conspiring to mislead Sony's customers by providing only 360 code to reviewers, and genuinely tainting the PS3 brand. Bethesda is not such an easy target I imagine though - considering their own legal department is nearly as batshit insane rabid and threatened Notch with legal destruction of he didn't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for his wonton use of the word "Scrolls" without Bethesda's explicit consent.
I know that's a tangent, but it certainly shows how Sony's legal rottweilers like their easy targets.