I considered the question, and then I was so blown away that you were even asking that I forgot about it and couldn't think of anything else to type other than "wtf did i just read," which got cleaned up into what you see above.
Let me just make sure I understand the logic here.
The marketing department of a company assembles a case study that can be used for a competitive comparison between their products and other products in the marketplace. Not surprisingly, the case study is overwhelmingly positive, and should, in theory, showcase the features and functionality of the product that sets it apart from other similar products.
Since a company is so audacious as to present their product in a positive light, you are suggesting that it also stands to reason that when a deranged individual utilizes the product in a way that was obviously not intended and causes harm to people -- through no fault or action of the device itself -- you believe that it should be fair game that the company be negatively impacted by that story.
If that is the case, then I will state it again --
wtf did i just read?
The idea is absurd and terrifying. It is akin to me suggesting that the next time that someone named "John" commits some heinous act, that your name should be listed as complicit.
The company -- whoever it was -- had absolutely nothing to do with what happened. Attempting to associate them in any way should be shouted down from all corners.