Apparently, the concept was created by a then-employee of Mattel, makers of Barbie. Or so Mattel’s lawyers convinced a jury. I think it’s a bullshit reason to shut them down, this is just a device to eliminate competition.
The Bratz girls were cheesy & widely regarded as vile, but it’s not like Barbie has room to talk. (Bratz, at least, weren’t hipless stick wonders…)
I so hope this gets overturned on appeal or something.
I’m not comfortable with the idea that just because someone comes up with and idea while working for a company, the idea belongs to the company and not the individual (especially if the company doesn’t do anything with the idea).
On the other hand, Bratz dolls are very high on my list of products for whom the makers should apologise for their existence and then go out of business, so I’m happy that, for the time being, the dolls will no longer be made and after Christmas will be off the market.
On the plus side, millions of little girls will get to think of themselves as outlaws for refusing to turn in their recalled dolls for destruction.
We could end up with an entire generation of rebels here.
MGA has some very interesting papers from the case on their website. Among some of the interesting things pointed out: Mattel wanted to “kill the Bratz” (Mattel’s own words) in the marketplace for years, creating a number of unsuccessful Bratz-like lines. (One of the documents- an internal slideshow explain how to increase sales for the coming year- even goes so far as to say that “Barbie stands for good; all others stand for evil.”) Mattel was even given the chance to distribute the Bratz toys in Latin America, but refused, saying the toys looked to similar to ones they had.
Until Mattel sues all of the fake-Barbie makers for copyright infringement, I’ll just assume this is a case of a larger company suing a serious competitor out of existence. They should have bought out MGA.
I think I’ll stick to buying Hasbro toys this year.
On one hand, I’m happy that idiot American parents have one less piece of plastic shit to charge to their credit cards and pay 26% interest on (feverishly hoping for a “bailout” the whole while) for their greedy and grabby kids who are being raised in instant gratification mode.
On the other hand, I appreciate the legal arguments alluded to in the OP.
[ol]
[li]You agree that a then-employee of Mattel created Bratz, but disagree that Mattel owns that intellectual property as a result[/li][li]You disagree with the factual finding that the employee created Bratz in the first place[/li][li]You accept the creation of the product and the ownership of the intellectual property as Mattel claims, but feel Mattel still shouldn’t have sued[/li][li]You agree with Mattel’s legal theory and their decision to sue, but feel some error in the trial mandates reversal[/li][li]You agree with the legal theory, the legal process, and think the trial was fair, but you just wish the world hadn’t happened this way[/li][li]You agree with the legal theory, the legal process, and think the trial was fair, but since Mattel created and sells Barbie as well, they are or should be foreclosed from legal relief for any other claims they might have[/li][li]Something else[/li][/ol]
I don’t see the logic here. I can maybe see the argument if I’m an auto-parts company and one of my secretaries writes a novel during her lunch breaks - I shouldn’t own the copyright. But if I hire somebody to do creative work for my company, I expect to own the product of their creativity. Carter Bryant was hired by Mattel to design dolls for them. He created the Bratz while working for Mattel but then apparently decided to take his ideas to another company. I don’t see where MGA has a legal leg to stand on.*
*Okay, I understand MGA’s legal position. They’ve basically conceded that the original four Bratz were designed by Bryant while he worked for Mattel and he couldn’t legally sell those designs. MGA’s position is that those four dolls are no longer being produced so Mattel isn’t entitled to anything from them and that all the current Bratz dolls were designed indepedently of the original four and so Mattel isn’t entitled to anything from them either. Mattel’s position is that all of the Bratz line is based on the original concept. The judge agreed with Mattel.
Do we know this for a fact? I’ll take your word for it if you’ve seen something that specifically confirms this, but I only saw mention that he worked for Mattel at the time, not what he did there.
Sounds pretty clear cut to me. Presumably someone with access to court documents could come up with his actual contract, but the finding of fact from the jury seems pretty clear - he had the idea while working at Mattel, and his contract at the time prevented him from taking said idea to someone else.
And speaking generally, you can’t receive payment for your ideas from one party, then give them to another. That’s fundamentally dishonest.
