By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
IvorEvilen on 10 October 2012
Edit Thread
happydolphin said:
IvorEvilen said:
This isn't necessarily just a copywrite infringement claim (which you can't blaim Sony for making the assertion, Bridgestone is clearly trying to cash-in on Jerry Lambert's influence on his fans), but more importantly a breach of contract lawsuit. Jerry Lambert and Bridgestone aren't being blind-sided here. They knew the risks of this shady form of business, and they probably figured Sony wouldn't do anything to avoid bad press, since the media and gamers both seem to respect Jerry Lambert. Sony is setting a precedent, like I would expect Nintendo, Microsoft, Activision, etc., to do as well.

Blindly defending Jerry Lambert, with no knowledge of contract or copywrite law (I don't mean just reading things randomly on wikipedia or on websites) just paints you as the fool. The big guy isn't always the bad guy.

Okay, you need to calm down.

Also, a question for you. How do you prove that Bridgestone is clearly trying to cash-in on Jerry Lambert's influence on his fans? What evidence do you or does anyone have of such an accusation? Answer -> None.

And even if, is that a crime, something to be brought to the legal system? In what way? If you can answer that, you can redeem this post I quoted.

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.