KruzeS on 13 June 2007
That's why I said it was mostly the offense, not the legality. They didn't threaten to sue because Sony didn't ask permission, they simply stated Sony hadn't asked for permission, to which Sony responded by saying they had obtained necessary permission, which is probably means not asking at all. This may be legal and all, but it sure ain't "polite". And yes, they made "demands", not unlike those the Sikh comunity made, to which Eidos voluntarily backed off and apologised.
By my point is, they didn't say they were suing Sony into complience or anything like that. They complained publicly, which I think is legitimate from a "politness" and even a "good taste" point of view. They said they were considering legal action, which is an aditional form of pressure. And with this they got Sony to talk to them, and maybe something positive can come out of that. Until a suit is filled, people are just getting way ahead of themselves.
By my point is, they didn't say they were suing Sony into complience or anything like that. They complained publicly, which I think is legitimate from a "politness" and even a "good taste" point of view. They said they were considering legal action, which is an aditional form of pressure. And with this they got Sony to talk to them, and maybe something positive can come out of that. Until a suit is filled, people are just getting way ahead of themselves.
Reality has a Nintendo bias.
