fordy said:
And your stance is really blindsiding the "innocent until proven guilty" stance that should be taken. Siding with the aggressor. Who is the fool again? Oh, and helpful hint, the commercial was paid for by Bridgestone. they're in it to sell tyres, not Wiis. kthx. |
Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the legal system and the final outcome. You can't use that as an argument to not sue someone... that would accomplish absolutely nothing. If I murdered someone, and everyone one knew it, I would still be "innocent until proven guilty" in the courts, but everyone would hate me and want me dead. I'm only saying to do more research before throwing support behind one side or the other.
And yes, I know they're into selling tires... I fail to see why that would matter. They're using Wiis as a promotional item, which means they're in a partnership with Nintendo, which also could also mean that Nintendo wanted Jerry Lambert, but that would only be hypothetical. The Wiis being present is what makes this a violation of contract and a potential copywrite violation. It doesn't matter what kind of merchandise Bridgestone sells.
