kowenicki said:
|
Yes.
Honestly, I just think this is Sony butt-hurt.
Sony cannot unreasonably restrict Jerry Lambert from performing his job. Usually contract terms can't survive in perpetuum once a contract has been terminated. Most terms of separation (non-compete clauses) can only last for 6 - 12 months. It's possible that Sony has obligated Lambert as a clause of another portion of his contract, let's say he receives royalties for the continued use of his image, so long as he does not promote another console.
While that may be in his contract, it is also entirely possible that a judge may be determine that clause invalid if it's unfairly restrictive.
From watching the original commercial, Lambert, who had appeared in previous Bridgestone commercials as the same character, was simply portraying the same character in a commercial advertising a Bridgestone promotion. He wasn't directly promoting the Wii.
Having said that, Bridgestone, in removing Lambert from the commercial, apparently agreed with Sony. Not sure if they felt Sony was correct or if they just did it to prevent this crap. I'm sure it was cheaper to edit the commercial rather than go through a lawsuit. As well, since Bridgestone already did this, have they resolved the dispute?
In most cases, if you rectify the claims before trial, you can avoid trial. I suppose it would be interesting to find out what damages Sony is claiming to continue the case.
