Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. Bridgestone Americas Inc

[forevercloud3000]

Kasz216 said:

forevercloud3000 said:

Kasz216 said:

forevercloud3000 said:

Yes, you can. These things are almost always under timed guidlines though, a few years and actors can do what they want. Depending on the contract you can completely ban an actor from appearing in certain mediums. In this case It doesn't seem to be THAT strict, simply that he can't advertise PS's direct competitors.......then he goes and advertises the Wii... :/

That's not a trademark.  That's a non-compete clause.   That's a totally different thing.

Also, such agreements are illegal in California.  Which is where Sony does all it's legal work and the Lawsuit is filed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California

In this case, they are the same topic at hand. There are always ways around such laws. In the Wiki it states that there is a lot of vague areas where this can be abused for either side. The fact that Playstation is part of Sony Corporation and  works in all territories, they can technically try him anywhere. KB commercials were also in Japan and a few other countries you know. If this is the case, California will have to play middle man for multiple territories. I am not saying this will work, but I am sure Sony will try.

Not in California there isn't.  

Also... no... Sony really can't... you are talking out of your ass without any clue how jurisdiction works.

Besdies which... the lawsuit was filed in California already.

It doesn't take long to google something rather then just assume something is the way you particularly want it to be.

Outside which your argument now seems to be... "Sony can find a way to totally wiggle out of this and break the law in an unethical manner."

Which, I guess if that's your point... more or less what i've been saying.  Sony is good with the Unethical lawsuits.  It won't be by being right or a legal loophole though.  They'll just use their usual tactic of bleeding the other side dry of legal funds.

I am not talking about breaking laws, I am saying almost every law has a loop hole. If this law in Cali was the end all be all, non-compete clauses wouldn't exist......but we know they do, I am personally in one. Why doesn't everyone just set up shop in Cali just so they can get out of them. It is not all monochrome, there are different stipulations that will effect the power of that law. Do you think a multi-million dollar company is not aware of these clauses and where they stand with them? It is fairly apparent that Sony must have some grounds to do this, as they are.