Yes, but the real reason is because American English is a simplification of British English, and one of the things simplified in our version of English is the elimination of "Y" where the "Y" sound is the same as an "I".  The exception to this is when "Y" is at the end of a word, or the suffix "-ing" is used.  (i.e. simplifying)

Same reason why American English dropped the "U" in favorite and honour, and the "A" in pedophile.  The funny thing is the Brits pronounce favorite the same as us, they just insist on writing the word with an "our" sound rather than an "or" sound.  In US English we dropped the use of AE in all but true Latin words.   

Ignore me I'm a spambot

~Barozi

In a World where Apple can win a Patent Suit on "Look and Feel" I wouldnt be so quick to say Sony will definitely lose this.

Hell, just because the Wii was in the commercial might push this over the edge, though it shouldnt.

Bridgestone having the commercial with him scrubbed out that quickly, might be seen (but shouldnt be) by a judge that they knew what they were doing was border-lining on "wrong"

Either way, Sony should have just let this go. Likewise, Bridgestone should have kept the two (Lambert and Videogames) apart. This is a wash of stupidity and should be thrown out.

Not really.

Sony's lawyers would have sent a cease and desist letter first.  Bridgestone's lawyers would have read it, figured the only issue of consequence was Lambert's contract and decided the way to resolve the cease and desist letter would be to eliminate Lambert from the video.  By removing Lambert Bridgestone should have satisfied all claims of harm.  Theoretically.

The fact that Sony is pressing the lawsuit means they believe at this point that their brand has been damaged by the presence of Jerry Lambert in the commercial somewhere approximately near a Wii.  The reason they're going to give is that because of the headlines that claimed Kevin Butler was in an ad for a the Wii, they'll suggest that the gaming community as a whole sees Jerry Lambert as Kevin Butler, therefore, Jerry Lambert as a nondescript white male is a Sony trademark.

Generic trademarks do not have as much protection as unique trademarks.  So, if we assume Jerry Lambert's portrayal of Kevin Butler can be trademarked, then the question is, is Sony's nondescript white guy unique?  If you look at the Holiday Inn ads especially, I don't think you can claim either performance by Jerry Lambert as anything but nondescript white guy in slacks, dress shirt, and tie. 

How can you trademark that?  You can't.  A performance of a character cannot be trademarked.  It can be copyrighted, but it can't be trademarked.  The character is nondescript white guy, a character that Lambert has played twice before.  Sony can't claim it's unique nor can Sony claim they were the first to do nondescript white guy  using Jerry Lambert. 

The only question is did Lambert violate Sony's contract, and it would appear that Bridgestone in good faith attempted to satisfy Sony's cease and desist letter or lawsuit by nullifying that claim and removing Lambert from the video.  At this point, the only thing that has caused damage to Sony is that they've sued both Bridgestone and Lambert when, to be honest, I think everyone forgot about the Bridgestone AMEX/Wii Promo advertisement until Bridgestone edited out Jerry Lambert and more recently when news of the lawsuit broke.

Any damage to Sony's brand at this point was the direct result of Sony, not Bridgestone.  My  first thought when I saw the Bridgestone ad was "Why the Wii?"  As in why not something like the Xbox 360 or the PS3?  If I just plunked down a hefty chunk of change for four Bridgestone tires I'd have wanted something a bit more powerful than a Wii.  Just saying.

Since the judge seems to be trying to get them to the bargaining table to talk it out rather than move the suit forward, my thoughts are Sony doesn't have a strong case and the judge thinks they should just cut a deal.  If Sony had a valid claim with serious damages, I doubt he'd be pushing for them to settle.

Bridgestone to Sony: This is not the Kevin Butler droid you are looking for.

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.

Remeber, it's Sony who is suing HIM. Sony in this case is the aggressive one.

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.

I initially tried to respond to posts in this thread that I found bad, then just the ones that are egregious, then just the ones that are mere idiocy. Even then, I simply wouldn't have enough time.

I am, however, being thoroughly educated on how the general public thinks the legal system works. It's...insightful.

Legal system?  You thought these responses are about the legal system???!!!

Dude, this is all about attacking or defending hated or beloved Sony.  This is VGChartz forums in a nutshell:  the world viewed through a prism of fanboyism.  Look at all the colors ...

...

......

..........

Shit, who was I kidding. You're right.

Curiously, that makes me feel a little better!