But they’re probably still selling more CPUs to your average buyer who always buys Intel, doesn’t read tech news and never even heard about the controversy.
Celebrities get wide latitude to protect themselves from imitators. Impressionists can do “satire” etc. but this isn’t that. It’s explicitly a reference to her voice in the movie, and as such she’s protected by law from them going around her and hiring someone else to imitate her.
It was explicitly represented as her voice when he tweeted “Her” in relation to the product, referencing a movie which she voiced. It’s not a legal grey area in the US. He sank his own ship here.
He tweeted “Her”, which explicitly tells us it’s a deliberate imitation of Scarlett’s voice in that movie. And he tried to negotiate licencing her famous voice, which she rejected.
So it’s more than just a coincidence, it’s deliberate bad faith behaviour. Legally you can’t misrepresent a product as being from a famous person when it wasn’t, and he very much did that. I guess he was hoping she’d give in and accept the licensing agreement post-facto. But instead it looks he’s in legal deep water now.
The thing is she randomly got lucky and proven right due to a pandemic that no-one expected. There are a huge number of other scientists out there who were also right but never had that luck.
Not in reliability…
But they’re probably still selling more CPUs to your average buyer who always buys Intel, doesn’t read tech news and never even heard about the controversy.