Wow, some overreactions by the Nintendo fanboys in here. It makes sense if you actually think about it.

-moderated Kasz216

I posted this first!

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=148400&page=1#

Edit....Actually ignore me, your title is far cooler. :p

So Sony aren't dumb, just their employees....?

....You know it was Sony that employees those employees right.

lmao.

In fact I wrote "execs", not simple lower level employees. Saying its execs are dumb is saying the company itself is dumb, and in this case PR and legal office ones should have advised the others, starting from the CEO, STRONGLY AGAINST doing this.

Imagine they have a no compete-clause in place that prevents Lambert to advertise for competing products and on court Lamberts lawyer pulls this quote from Sony CEO Kaz Hirai himself:

"It's difficult to talk about Nintendo, because we don't look at their console as being a competitor.” (Kaz Hirai, 2009)

Sony is really lame. Suing for an advertizement? Pathetic.

Now, it would be more interesting if they were being sued for simply cloning what the competition do, beginning by the Move, then following by LBP karting and then continuing with Battle Royal.

Sony is a company that never had any creativity. They are bleeding money everywhere, the Vita is an atrocious flop, the PS3 will end up last of this generation. But they are suing for an advertizing character. LOL

Ironic they are suing over the Wii...

...Whist Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale is coming out shortly...

...Then there's the "Move"...

Oh then there's the bit above as @Chandler pointed out that they don't see Nintendo as a competitor...

Dear dear Sony...I think you need to see a psychologist for your split personality disorder. Maybe Kaz is suffering from concussion or something. He seems very confused.

they own the character Kevin Butler, not the guy playing him. so Sony should lose in court.

Not unless someone is willing to give the guy free, competent legal represenatation.

People don't have the right to a lawyer in a lawsuit (which is bullshit) so essentially, if a big company lawyer has just enough room to make the arguement.  They can force the defendent to settle or risk being bled dry in court.

From what I can see, there's actually no case here. That document says 'trademark infringement' which hasn't happened, because Jerry Lambert does not equal Kevin Butler. They're going to have an uphill battle proving the similarities between KB & the character in the Bridgestone commercial

If they were suing for breach of contract then that would be more understandable, because despite all the armchair lawyers here playing the 'he's just a poor guy making a living!' card, the law is the law and if you breach a contract and cause the other party to have suffered loss because of it, they're well within their rights to receive damages.

But yeah, that doesn't seem to be what's going on here so I have no idea.