richardhutnik said:
Lawsuits are often how corporations try to get the attention of other corporations. Often times they will quickly settle out of court. Sony didn't like the whole Wii promotion angle and sued to make it aware. So, it makes sense they resolved out of court and clarified contract stuff. |
I don't think this was a good idea, with all the bad publicity as a result.
| joeorc said: "sony is NOT suing jerry" just because jerry is the CEO of Wildcat Creek, Inc advertising firm. "Inc" see that people want to know why jerry put his company in a Inc? its very simple. Jerry is not being sued, and for a reason! "Incorporation provides legal protection for business owners that no other type of business ownership can afford. Through incorporation, the assets of owners remain completely separate from the assets of the business thereby limiting the overall liability owners can face in the event of business failure. To meet the legal definition of a true corporation, certain conditions must be met, including regular meetings with a board of directors, accurately recording the minutes of all board meetings, issuing stock certificate of ownership and filing the necessary paperwork with the state on a annual basis. Failure to do any of these steps can negate the incorporation and pass liability directly to the owners." let that sink in real good. Sony could not directly Sue Jerry only the Ad agency. And the case is being moved ex parte order anyway. IE: dismissal before the answer or appearance of the defendant(s). which was in the legal doc.s for this case in reference 14 of the legal doc's. which the person who posted this already knew or posted it anyway. knowing full well it was being settled out of court! |
lmao.
They are still suing Jerry Lambert, the fact he owns the company is the reason they are suing HIS company and it will be JERRY LAMBERT that has to cough up for any legal damages if awarded and JERRY LAMBERT that will have to pay for legal council.
I posted this because it's damn interesting news, if a potential sensationalized headline of "Kevin Butler Sued By Sony" isn't interesting, I don't know what is. Settled now or otherwise that was the state of the situation as I interpreted it when I posted it and if it wasn't the case at the time, it certainly was at some point in the past few weeks.
Don't know if you live in the UK or not, but Jimmy Savile who died last year is being hung drawn and quartered as paedophile from his alleged actions in the 70s. Although dead now, he still allegedly received hand shandies and other questionable concessions from unwitting children. Even though he certainly won't be receiving them now, it's still kinda...you know important news that is being reported.
By your logic, we shouldn't be posting news about that because it isn't happening right here and right now. Unless you were incinuating that I posted this as some kind of deliberate false news to discredit Sony, which is more likely and thus it would be nice if you had something to back that up...oh...you don't.
To really prove my point about the suing thing, you've heard of the case of the US Government Vs Megaupload right?
They are suing Megaupload, not Kim Dotcom.
They are also seeking criminal extradition for a criminal trial but the civil suit is against Megaupload the company.
Duh, This is not about Kevin Butler/Jerry Lambert
CEO Kaz Hirai @KazHiraiCEO CEO Kaz Hirai @KazHiraiCEO
We've sued the Kevin Butler actor after making a Wii ad with blatant copyright infringement: the controller in the ad was a PS Move clone!
Kaz is always right
| joeorc said: "Did they already settle? Wow, that was fast!"
read reference court case doc. 14 its right in the first link it already moved to ex parte by plaintif. all there needs by the court is update to the status of resolution to the ex parte, with Jerry being removed from the bridge stone ad its pretty much over with at that point, and the fact it was as of OCT 5th its most likely done in resolution. |
Yes, now I got it, but after seing other lawsuits between corporations last a lot more, I was simply surprised it was settled in a month or so.
Also, not being a lawyer, in some cases I'd need a translation to understand even Italian legal jargon 
, let alone American one, so thanks for the explanation.
So what I'm seeing is...we're not going to be returning to the greatness of the Kevin Butler campaigns...
Its funny that this guy cant even show his face in other ads now without causing trouble.
Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.
Galaki said:
I don't think this was a good idea, with all the bad publicity as a result. |
If you end up polling Sony faithful, odds are they support the move, because they were screaming his is a "traitor". If you talk to people who aren't into it either way, they don't care. If you talk to hardcore gamers, it is a meh. Yes, it looks stupid, but is it going to impact things one way or another?
Anyhow, often times, after the legal dust settles, there is a kiss and make up period. And now, Jerry's new character is nowhere to be seen in ads, and Sony tries to salvage as much left as Kevin Butler as a brand.
| fillet said:
Can you provide anything solid to show what you are saying is true apart from your gut feeling. My thoughts are quite the oppoiste of yours. For example, you say that Jerry can advertise anywhere he likes apart from a competing games console? How do you know that is the case? Sony are a diversified company, what if he was advertising, let's say basically any electronic device ever made (since they would be competing with Sony), along with maybe a film, considering Sony has a film studio, or maybe a financial product, considering Sony has a finance business... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#Business_units So that's 1 point I'm interested in hearing your view on, another would be about the "timed guidline". Now, Kowenicki has mentioned that these things from his own actual experience are quite rare and can't last longer than 6 months from end of use. Considering Jerry hasn't portrayed his character in a Sony advertisment for at least 12 months, that's another point. |
I don't know of any finite specifics of this case, none of us really do and we wont till its end. We were discussing the simple "ability" for Sony to pull out a law suit on Jerry and we were making guesses at why untill someone posted Sony's official statment which just so happened to be almost verbatim what I said previously.
I have some personal experience dealing with similar contractual obligations with my modeling career. Basically had an entire conversation about it with my Modeling Agent Tracy Stern on it and she gave me some fair insight about how that works. I am no expert and I don't claim to be, but It appears that some of you all's "fight the corperate machine" mentality is blinding you from what is or isn't possible. The fact that it is even still pursuing it shows that they do have some ground to stand on and make this case.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/57911923/DQfpvkMU8AA_hnk.0.jpg)
PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
