If You Worked At Mattel And Thought About Making A Non-Barbie Doll, You Can't
from the how-dare-you... dept
A bunch of folks have sent in the story that the ultra-popular "Bratz" dolls have been banned by a judge following a long court case. The case revolved around a former employee of Mattel (makers of Barbie), who apparently developed the concept of the Bratz dolls while working there. However, he ended up going out on his own to produce them -- which is the history of an awful lot of American success stories over the years. Steve Wozniak developed the Apple computer while he was working at HP, but the company wasn't interested in making the machines. Robert Noyce (founder of both Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel) felt underappreciated at Shockley Transistor. There are plenty of stories of folks working at one company realizing that they could do a better job on their own -- and that leads to competition and innovation. There was also some evidence in the case suggesting the guy had actually developed the basic idea of Bratz well before he was even employed by Mattel, though it does sound like he continued to work on the idea on the side while employed there -- though only in designing the idea, not actually making the dolls. It was only after he had left Mattel that he actually moved forward with implementing the idea. To stop him from ever going to market with a doll concept he was thinking about for years just because he worked at Mattel seems ridiculous and very anti-competitive.However, even if you grant that Mattel has some sort "ownership" over the ideas in this guy's head while he worked at Mattel, it should only apply to the first generation of Bratz dolls. However, the court has gone even further, barring everything having to do with the Bratz dolls. Mattel, of course, is thrilled. Bratz had been the first really successful competitor to the Barbie franchise, and getting a court to shut it down completely is a huge win for Mattel. There will be an appeal, of course. The judge at least allowed the products to stay on the shelves through the holiday season, and it's quite likely that the appeals court will put a stay on the injunction until it hears the case. Even if it's eventually decided at higher courts that Bratz somehow infringe on Barbie intellectual property, it seems like a fine, rather than a complete injunction is a much more reasonable punishment.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
well...
It's unfortunate that the end result is a lot of money wasted on lawyers, one company out of biz, and another company happy that they eradicated the competition that could have been their own cash-cow had they not been so blind when they were first approached with the idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So there was some copyright infringement. Or was there? It isn't clear. Perhaps Bryant should have developed a non-infringing concept of the Bratz dolls if he were such a great innovator and competitor. Or maybe a higher court will decide that his dolls don't infringe on Barbie, after all. I'd say it's a bit too early to give him the benefit of doubt.
Sadly it's not known how the Bratz dolls infringed on Barbie dolls and to what extent. Was it the "huge lips, pug noses, almond-shaped eyes and coquettish figures"?
"The jury verdict form only asked panelists to find whether there was infringement..but did not ask them to specify which dolls among the dozens MGA made violated the law."
That sounds fishy. The jury should have insisted that it be made clear how exactly the copyright was infringed and to what extent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Or did he secretly develop the property at Mattel (using their time, equipment, etc) and start his own company without showing his work to anyone?
I hate to be the black cloud here Mike, but how would you feel if one of your employees developed his own website/service while you were paying him to work develop Floor64 and went off and started up a very similiar site/service without running it by you first?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: same post as #4, with better grammer (hopefully)
Or did he secretly develop the property at Mattel (using their time, equipment, etc) and start his own company without showing his work to anyone?
I hate to be the black cloud here Mike, but how would you feel if one of your employees developed his own website/service while you were paying him to work on Floor64 business and then he went off and started up a very similar site/service without running it by you first?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All About the $$$
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: same post as #4, with better grammer (hopefully)
I hate to be the black cloud here Mike, but how would you feel if one of your employees developed his own website/service while you were paying him to work on Floor64 business and then he went off and started up a very similar site/service without running it by you first?
That would be fine. I encourage my employees to do what they think is most important in their lives. I might be upset over losing a good employee, but if they really have a passion to go off and do their own thing, I'm not going to stand in their way. Over the years, some employees have left (ones I wished had stayed), but I'm still in contact with every single person who's ever worked here in some way or another, and always excited to hear about their progress with other projects.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Suppose you pay an employee to work 8 hours/day on Floor64. He (or she) told you he was working on Floor64 business. But it turns out, he was really working on his own business when he claimed to be working on Floor64 and goes off to use the material built using your resources to start his own company.
Would you still be OK with this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you come up with ideas while working at corporate, do NOT ever let your bosses find out, because they own the rights to the patents. Even if it has nothing to do with their company (although in those cases they will often allow you to keep working on it because they are uninterested in a totally unrelated patent in their portfolio).
There's a good reason he left mattel. Too bad they caught him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IP
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mattel
I can tell you my daughter HATED little blond haired dolls. Can you find any American-Indian dolls WITHOUT headdress, buckskin miniskirts, and moccisins?
Bratz, while admittedly on the trashy side, a minority girl could look at and see something that was at least close to how they looked.
Now I guess it's back to everyone having to fall in line and buy the good little aryian blonde chick...I feel so sorry for my grand-daughters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I see the CEOs of the corporations as overfed, spoiled, bitter and whiny kids whos sissy parents have just taken a slice of their 8-gallon 15 layer chocolate cake and given it to a starving child. The kid does what comes natural to them- they demand their slice of the cake back. i mean, its their cake, right? legally, not really, and ethically not at all.
unfortunately, the system that we have instantiated in our society allows the use of scalpels and stomach pumps in order to retreive our cake.
disgusting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
what's the problem?
Oh, wait. I just googled those words and either of them is pretty much a guaranteed lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
How do you define "my resources"? First of all, if he wasn't actually getting his work done for us, then I would be happy to see him go. If he is getting his work done, he (or she -- we have women employees as well) is free to do what he wants with the rest of his time -- even if it's creating his own business. In fact, I've encouraged some of our employees to work on various side projects they have that seem interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As Far as Ideas Go...
Bryant: "Boss, I've got a great new idea for a doll line."
Mattel Exec: "Pitch it to me."
B: Oh, it's fantastic. I've got a design for a new doll I think we should market to girls between six and twelve. We'll give them ultra-skinny bodies and huge heads and feet which are grotesquely disproportionate to their bodies.
ME: Uh, go on.
B: Then we'll dress them in tube tops and miniskirts and give them gaudy eye makeup to make them look like whores. We won't give them a nose, and we'll make their lips look like a collagen job gone horrifyingly wrong - in fact, I propose their lips be as large as both of their hands put together.
ME: This isn't sounding very aesthet...
B: Oh, and their eyes, too. Also, I thought about names like 'Lick Lick' and "Lisa Lichstaspread,' but we'll take the edge off and use names like 'Sasha' and 'Jade' instead, you know, for marketability purposes.
ME: These things sound disfigured...do you even have...
B: The best part is, we can sell the little hooches for twice what a Barbie costs, because God knows prepubescent girls would just love to have a doll that looks like a girl who spends her weekends spread-eagle with her panties wrapped around her platform shoes in the back of her boyfriend's '89 Camaro, crossing those 'please God no baby' fingers as she makes another mental note to start taking the pill. And parents will shell it out, because after all, they're all afraid of their kids. Whaddya say, boss?
ME: Uh, let's go 99.99% no.
B: So there's a chance!
ME: Well...do you own a firearm?
B: Uh, no.
ME: Go ahead and bump that up to 100%, then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mattel's products suck which is why they're REALLY suing.
While I personally don't see how these dolls can be appealing to anyone, sales of these plastic icons prove it's quite a few, and this is why Mattel is up in arms about it.
"Even if it's eventually decided at higher courts that Bratz somehow infringe on Barbie intellectual property, it seems like a fine, rather than a complete injunction is a much more reasonable punishment."
Fine? Bullshit. There is no IP infringement as any person with half a brain can easily tell the difference between a Barbie and Bratz doll.
The initial ruling was also bullshit which shows more of how our judicial system is failing, rather than protecting. Mattel's "rights" are out of line here so there was nothing to protect.
"However, even if you grant that Mattel has some sort "ownership" over the ideas in this guy's head while he worked at Mattel"
ANYONE who thinks this is an ignorant moron and is usually called "CEO". No one, not even the idea maker, owns an idea. It's not tangible. You can't own it. You may own the product spurned from the idea, but not the idea.
Oh, wait. This explains why there are so many IP issues as ignorant morons continue to believe this.
Here's an idea (up for sale if anyone wants it): Let's fire anyone who thinks ideas can be owned so the rest of business can truly innovate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No more Bratz!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good News!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Good News!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Your resources" are your company equipment and time. Let's pretend you had an office with lots of specialized equipment for doing specialized design work (like say, designing and creating molds of dolls).
And more importantly, I'm not saying you told or encourage them to use their *free* time to do something else. You instructed them, as many business do, that company equipment and time can only be used for YOUR company's business. Let's say you made them sign an agreement saying exactly that, as I'm sure Mattel did.
Even at Google, the apocryphal "20% side project" is owned by Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
copyright ?
How can one copyright the likeness of the human form ?
This is stupid.
Where do they find these people to sit on the jury ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mattel
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Know your obligations and rights. If you sign an employment contract, read it thoroughly and know that you have the right to change it and give your employer an opportunity to accept or reject the change. If there's something you don't like, cross it out, then sign - and draw your employer's attention to the revision to avoid unpleasantness later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mattel's products suck which is why they're REALLY suing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Good News!
As some friends of ours commented when I rolled my eyes when their daughter dressed up as Hannah Montana for Halloween: "Hey, we like Hannah Montana. She actually wears clothes."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Your resources" are your company equipment and time. Let's pretend you had an office with lots of specialized equipment for doing specialized design work (like say, designing and creating molds of dolls).
It's not at all clear that this guy used company owned tools, and unless you're being paid hourly (we don't pay our employees hourly) I don't believe in "company owned time."
And more importantly, I'm not saying you told or encourage them to use their *free* time to do something else. You instructed them, as many business do, that company equipment and time can only be used for YOUR company's business. Let's say you made them sign an agreement saying exactly that, as I'm sure Mattel did.
I wouldn't do that. I see no reason to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mattel
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Good News!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Clause
> corporate engineering jobs come with employment
> contracts including such clauses.
Or, more to the point, that such a clause would be remotely enforceable by a court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: As Far as Ideas Go...
I have an idea.. A cross between transformers and bratz: Robo-pimps. With Kungfu backhand action. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
copyright on Nature
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ok, what if your employee kicked the door to your house in and gave your kids drugs, drank all your beer, raped your wife, stole your car and credit cards, used one to by an assualt rifle at a gun show, and then shot up your place of business, killing 5 and wounding 17 before turning the gun on himself, but not before the final insult of said employee expensing the afformentioned carnage as "business lunch" and "mileage"...
...oh, and all of this was on company time...
i think we've found common ground here and would agree that these actions are not copyright violations... but it still may not prevent a movie studio from claiming it's their intellectual property...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mattel's products suck which is why they're REALLY suing.
The dolls are slutty, as are the "role model tweens" they are modeled after.
Telling the difference isn't IP law, it's trademark.
And to your comment about nobody owning an idea; it's in a contract, the same thing happened with Steve Wozniak. They owned everything he came up with while he was working for them, same thing happens with companies like Mattel. You can own it, it's called copyright and intellectual property.
Don't quit your day job, let alone be fired for making stupid suggestions
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Actually, no. Your ideas are your ideas.
The only way around this for companies is to incorporate – ie. turn the company into a sort of person. Then those involved in the corporation may work together to come up with the details of a concept, and the corporation still owns the copyright / rights to patent, but if it's one individual working on it by themselves, it's still them and not the corporation's.
As much as I despise Bratz itself, this sounds like gross injustice to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: All About the $$$
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Actually, no. Your ideas are your ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: same post as #4, with better grammer (hopefully)
In this case his contract probably had a similar clause for anything he was creating or innovating at the time of his employment and failed to get the requisite waiver.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Creator Bill of Rights
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Conspiracy
[ link to this | view in thread ]