Anyone here want to confirm whether or not this lawsuit popped up before or after the Interwebs was going, "Kevin Butler is a traitor!" because the ad appeared?  If it was after, then Sony realized they must of underestimated the importance of Kevin Butler as a brand to them they use in marketing, when they let him go.  Pretty much, in short, if you don't respect your brands, don't expect to mount much of a defense of them.

I'm not particularly upset, so I'm sorry if it came across that way.  I'm not particularly picking sides on this issue either, but I did get frustrated by a number of individuals simply targeting Sony without much reasononing than Sony being the larger, more powerful party.

As for your loaded question, the burden of proof is on Sony, and I do not particularly think they can win that claim.  It doesn't change the fact that Bridgestone is trying to cash-in on Sony's success with Kevin Butler.  Jerry Lambert is a face many gamers/consumers would recognize and respect, which would psychologically project onto Bridgestone.  That is the argument that I would expect Sony is trying to make, the problem is that Sony would have prove that the character he is playing is similar or the same as Kevin Butler to win any sort of copywrite infringement, which I do not believe can be done, personally.

Ultimately what this comes down to is contract violation.  Did Lambert's contract include a non-compete clause or not?  Bridgestone might get in a little trouble for perpetuating the situation, but ultimately a contract violation is much more damaging for Jerry Lambert than a copywrite violation would be.

Edit:  I do have one last closing remark.  I've seen people commenting on the frivolity of this case.  What is the point of a contract and a team of lawyers if you aren't going to use them?  A contract is intended to protect both parties should one side break the contract, not just the little guy.

Okay, you may have misunderstood the situation.

There are two situations at hand.

1) The headline accusation:  "based on violations of the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship".

2) The supporting violations: "The company went on to allege: 'We invested significant resources in bringing the Kevin Butler character to life and he's 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 Sony's intellectual property, creates confusion in the market and causes damage to Sony.'

So item 1 has to do with violation of a contract and of an intellectual property (lanham act, misappropriation). The argument against that is should Jerry Lambert scrape off his face? The answer is no. What else about him makes him Kevin Butler? The maneurisms, but are those even purely Sony's creation, or did he use those maneurisms before? He used them with Geiko. What about his likeness (suit and tie)? Already used.

The thing you're talking about relates to item 2, where Sony makes a support accusation saying (in loose terms) that associating with competing products confuses consumers. Well this would be true if it were Kevin Butler playing Wii in the Bridgestone commercial, but it's not, it's Jerry Lambert. Bridgestone could be using the likeness of Kevin Butler to push the promotion of a video game console promotion FOR bridgestone, but that would not be against the law. Had Jerry Lambert played Kevin Butler and done that, that would have been against the law.

Personally, I don't know enough about typecasting in copywrite law, but that is generally why a non-compete clause is so prevalent.  It doesn't matter if Jerry Lambert was playing the Wii; he was in a commercial with a Wii in it, with the Wii as a promotion, which in turn advertises the Wii and Mario Kart.  This ultimately benefits Nintendo, which is a direct competitor of Sony.  If it was not present, I do not see Sony being able to win this lawsuit, so it's a wait and see situation.  I would say it's safe to assume that this is a contract violation.

The supporting violations sound all well and good, but they are simply too vague and more an explanation for the move they are making.  As I mentioned, Bridgestone's actions will result in a little trouble should Sony win, which in this case would be a result of the tortious interference.  Misappropriation could either refer to the use of Kevin Butler or Sony resources, which I do not think can be proved.  I don't really fully comprehend the extent of the Lanham Act, but I would imagine in this situation it would refer to the misappropriation, so it would just be a fancy way of saying the same thing twice.

Sony clearly wants to win a copywrite infringement case, as that gets them more money, but I highly doubt they would have pursued such a claim had there not been a contract violation.  More of a two-birds, one stone kind of deal, where the other bird by itself is worth more, but not worth the stone if they missed.  Either way, a contract violation would be very damaging to Jerry Lambert's career (it could end it completely).

The double-edged sword of the two-birds one stone approach is that one of their birds (the misappropriation accusation) can bite them in the ass since it is VERY difficult to prove in this case (the whole Kevin Butler vs Jerry Lamber debate we've mulled over we both agree is picking at straws), and could harm the credibility of the other more valid accusation (contract violation). And even _it_ is a stretch, since the contract was theoretically over when the Bridgestone commercial aired. I agree for that we need to wait and see, as the contract may have mentioned that originally that he couldn't even "work" as in prepare for another commercial while on the 1-year period. However, add to this that it was filed in the state of California, where this kind of non-compete clause is generally dimissed, and this all in all looks like a failed case with 90% probability.

His contract had expired. Which makes this 0 about breach of contract and 100% about Sony being butt hurt that their former employee did an ad somewhat related to the Wii.

Umm, non-compete clauses could go on for years after the relationship is physically over.  There is also speculation that they had another contract in the works (note, speculation, not fact).

In the works, meaning, signed? Also, what did you think of my last post?

Sorry, scrolled down too fast :P

It was just speculation of discussions; that a contract could have been getting laid out, more from observing Sony.  As for your last post, the issue of it being California didn't even occur to me.  I'm so used to thinking of Indiana specific loopholes.  Yeah that could be problematic, but aren't there specific exceptions for situations involving trade secrets and partnerships?  There's no way every non-compete agreement is dismissed... hmm, I'll look into that later when I have more time.  As for hurting their credibility.  As long as they have evidence, each claim should have fair representation (edit:  theoretically, I suppose it could).  It's just less hassle and money.

Now it is time for a power-nap.

Enjoy the nap :) In the mean time, here is a link I read while going over this thread.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/noncompete-agreements-are-also-nonlegal-in-california/Content?oid=1878905