Are Tweets And Text Messaging Actually Increasing The Appeal Of Long Form Writing?

Judge Now Says That Mattel Doesn't Get To Own All Of Bratz

from the greedy-bratz dept

Tue, Jan 4th 2011 7:03pm — Mike Masnick

We were somewhat horrified by a ruling a little over two years ago that said that because a guy employed by Mattel had created the idea for the "Bratz" doll line while employed at Mattel (but not in a doll-creating capacity), it meant that Mattel could own all of Bratz. The guy eventually took his idea to competitor MGA Entertainment, who developed and built up the Bratz line, which became the first serious challenger to Barbie's dominance in the doll world. What really troubled us was the fact that the court ruled not just that Mattel owned the rights to the original Bratz doll idea, but that it owned everything having to do with Bratz, even plans for future dolls. While the guy worked at Mattel, all he created was a prototype, not everything that came after that. Thankfully, Judge Kozinski slapped down the lower court in much of this thinking, explaining (once again) that copyright only covers the expression, not the idea.

Judge Kozinski sent the case back to the district court, noting that it probably would mean that the entire case would need to be retried. In the first step concerning that new trial, the district court judge has ruled that Mattel cannot seek damages on later versions of the dolls, limiting that part of the case to just two original dolls. The judge noted:

"Not only do the vast majority of the subsequent generations of Bratz dolls differ in their hairstyles and fashions � but they lack any meaningful similarities outside of ideas."

Of course, the district court could have saved a lot of time and effort if it had just made this basic point the first time around. There will still be a trial about the initial doll designs, as well as a trade secrets claim, but, unlike the original trial, it seems that Mattel won't end up with all of the Bratz line.

That said, the original ruling apparently did tons of damage already to MGA and Bratz. As the article notes, MGA seriously cut back on Bratz after the original ruling (why build toys that a competitor gets to own?) and many retailers stopped carrying the line as it wasn't clear what was going to happen. So even if Mattel loses the eventual lawsuit, it seems that it may have won in the long run by seriously curtailing a strong competitor that had tremendous momentum. Just like copyright law intended...

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

Filed Under: barbie, bratz, copyright
Companies: mattel, mga

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jay (profile), 4 Jan 2011 @ 7:06pm

Lawsuits...
It's the new way to destroy the competition.

Same way it destroyed Captain Marvel it seems to destroy any innovation in the field.

Why is it that litigation spreads far quicker than innovation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Howard, Cowering, 4 Jan 2011 @ 7:21pm

Re: #1 Lawsuits...
Because litigation brings immediate rewards without any more effort than surviving shyster school (remember, on average, one out of every two lawyers in this country graduated in the bottom half of their class).

Innovation takes dedication, perseverence, the ability to connect things in ways they've never been connected before -- in short, intelligence rather than cunning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 4 Jan 2011 @ 7:22pm

Maybe we aren't in Wonderland after all
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixeation, 4 Jan 2011 @ 7:37pm

I was going to buy a Bratz doll. Then this lawsuit came about. Now, I think I'll buy a Barbie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2011 @ 8:02pm

Re: Re: #1 Lawsuits...
"unscrupulous lawyer," 1843, U.S. slang, probably altered from Ger. Scheisser "incompetent worthless person," from Scheisse "shit," from O.H.G. skizzan "to defecate" (see shit).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=shyster&searchmode=none
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2011 @ 8:33pm

Re:
you have that backwards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 4 Jan 2011 @ 9:10pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the creator sign an employment agreement that prohibited or restricted him from creating a competitive product while employed by Mattel?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 4 Jan 2011 @ 9:13pm

Re: Re:
There is this word you should learn ...

Sarcasm ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 4 Jan 2011 @ 9:19pm

Re:
Perhaps, but this was created outside of that agreement.

It's almost like I created a new way of cooking fish when I work at a seafood restaurant. The ingredients are the same, but if I went to create them in my own way and market it, it's MY efforts, not the company's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2011 @ 9:24pm

non-compete employee agreements are rediculously one sided. I remember this fight goes back much longer than 1 or 2 years. Anyone know what the bratz creator did for mattel?

P.S. I'm glad this sunk Bratz, but hate non-competes. I wasn't wild about little girls aspiring to be hip barely clothed hoochies. I kind of view it like an oil company squashing a blood diamond mine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 4 Jan 2011 @ 10:03pm

Re:
Have you seen some of the malls they can shop in?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Jan 2011 @ 10:22pm

Re:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the creator sign an employment agreement that prohibited or restricted him from creating a competitive product while employed by Mattel?

As far as I recall, the employment agreement did require the guy to assign rights to inventions he made while working for Mattel to Mattel, but as judge Kozinski pointed out, this (a) only covered full inventions -- not random ideas you have and (b) for the replicas and mockups he made, these were designed outside of his job duties at Mattel, and thus were not subject to the terms of the agreement, which stated it only covered work done *for Mattel*.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 4 Jan 2011 @ 10:49pm

Re: Re:
I'd be interested in seeing the actual contract. But don't get me wrong, I'm totally against the concept of corporate ownership of all employee creations. Alot of my friends have to work under fake names because of similar concerns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 4 Jan 2011 @ 10:51pm

Re: Re:
Not that I agree with this kind of contract, but they can be VERY specific. So much so that they force you to sign away rights well outside of reason. This is particularly so when dealing with the creation of a competitive product.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 4 Jan 2011 @ 11:40pm

Re:
Barely clothed hoochies need love too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Jan 2011 @ 12:52am

Re: Re: Re:
I'd be interested in seeing the actual contract. But don't get me wrong, I'm totally against the concept of corporate ownership of all employee creations. Alot of my friends have to work under fake names because of similar concerns.

My original post has a link to judge Kozinki's full ruling, which doesn't have the full contract, but does quote the relevant sections.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/18242810326.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2011 @ 2:28am

Is darryl under water today?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wolfy, 5 Jan 2011 @ 3:26am

I seem to recall a line... "and first we kill all the lawyers..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 5 Jan 2011 @ 4:25am

Re:
That's Sir Terry Pratchett's Vetinari character, the most benevolent dictactor, well, ever.

Vetinari is awesome. :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 5 Jan 2011 @ 4:42am

Re:
I thought CA passed a law forbidding this sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2011 @ 5:57am

Wow! Justice in America?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 5 Jan 2011 @ 7:04am

Re: Re:
I think the employee's ideas could have been covered by the employment agreement, but the issue on appeal was that the district court erred in holding that the ideas necessarily were Mattel's. The issue should have been presented to the jury.

From the opinion:

We conclude that the agreement could be interpreted to cover ideas, but the text doesn�t compel that reading. The district court thus erred in holding that the agreement, by its terms, clearly covered ideas. . . . . If the meaning turns in part on the credibility of conflicting extrinsic evidence, a properly instructed jury should have decided the issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2011 @ 7:20am

Re:
I'll get my gun. What should we use to lure them? a 100 dllr bill or a small child with candy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ronald J Riley (profile), 5 Jan 2011 @ 7:38am

One of the few times Mike Masnick gets it.
Mike Masnick does not often end up on the right side of intellectual property (IP) issues but he has in this case.

Mattel has a long history of taking liberties with others IP. While the toy industry has in the past had a pretty good reputation for dealing fairly with inventors, Mattel has not. In recent years consolidation in the industry has led to less competition and less reputable conduct.

In any event, from what I know of Mattel I cannot help but think that they deserve to be handed their heads in the MGA Bratz case.

Ronald J. Riley,

President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org

Other Affiliations:
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 (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ronald J Riley (profile), 5 Jan 2011 @ 7:43am

Employment Agreements
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the creator sign an employment agreement that prohibited or restricted him from creating a competitive product while employed by Mattel?"

Those kinds of agreements are quite difficult to enforce, rightfully so.

Ronald J. Riley,

President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org

Other Affiliations:
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 (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ronald J Riley (profile), 5 Jan 2011 @ 7:47am

Re: Re: #1 Lawsuits...
"Innovation takes dedication, perseverence, the ability to connect things in ways they've never been connected before -- in short, intelligence rather than cunning."

True, but the problem is most of the companies claiming to be innovators are claiming others innovations as their own.

When that happens real inventors have no choice except to sue the pants off of the shyster innovators.

Ronald J. Riley,

President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org

Other Affiliations:
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 (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2011 @ 7:53am

Re:
"I seem to recall a line... "and first we kill all the lawyers..."

Be careful what you wish for. Before lawyers we had sovereigns deciding or trial by combat, neither of which were fairer then what happens in court. While our legal system is far from perfect, it is better than any other altrnative I have seen.

Ronald J. Riley,

President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org

Other Affiliations:
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 (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron Rezendes (profile), 5 Jan 2011 @ 8:44am

Re: Re:
Yes! Trial by combat!

Oh my - we could clear the court dockets in just a few weekends and eliminate half of the lawyers who clog up said docket with ridiculous lawsuits.

Let's turn this into a business enterprise and offer up the matches on pay-per-view! We can sell t-shirts proclaiming that we're purifying the gene pool one match at a time!

=)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2011 @ 10:17am

Re: Re:
Please consult your local regulations regarding hunting lawyers.

In some locales use of currency for this purpose may be prohibited.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 5 Jan 2011 @ 10:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Awesome. Thanks much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 5 Jan 2011 @ 12:18pm

Re: One of the few times Mike Masnick gets it.
Mike Masnick does not often end up on the right side of intellectual property (IP) issues but he has in this case.

Oh, Ron, this is why we love you....at least we know where your bias is unlike the astroturfing anonymous cowards.

I, on the other hand, believe Mike is on the right side of intellectual property issues 9 times out of 10, but I am not a IP maximalist who believes that IP is a sacred cash cow. I'd be happy with 18 year term-limits on my copyrights (hell, my copyrights are distributed under GPL anyway, so everyone already has access to them,) and I'd love to see IP become a bit more reasonable than it currently is (where IP maximalists bend and break IP to become the cash cow it is, where the winner is the guy with the most/best lawyers who got there first without actually producing anything.)

I believe that most IP maximalists take liberty with other's IP, whether it is software vendors taking GPL code and using it in their software without following the license or patent trolls sitting on standards groups patenting anything that falls out of their meetings. If the end goal is to maximize your profit at the expense of your competitors, even when you can steal their work to maximize your product, and I believe Mattel is the end result of the equation IP maximalists seek...the IP Elite, who were there first and thus can spend all their time taxing everyone else since they don't actually have to spend any of their time or effort actually producing anything. I weep for new content providers, because they have to spend most of their time finding out whether or not someone else has been there first. Doesn't seem to matter whether it is patents or copyrights...especially since in this case it is a copyright argument (whether the dolls he produced during his work at Mattel look similar to the dolls produced by MGA Entertainment.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
c-cat, 11 Jan 2011 @ 10:10am

Bryant, the creator, was a Barbie designer at Mattel. He did not just come up with the idea but presented it to Mattel. Mattel is very cautious as to what house brands are allowed to compete with Barbie. They passed on the idea. Bryant also used Mattel's fax machine to transmit information and sketches to MGA. No one knows whether he used his actual Mattel working time to work on the Bratz concept but if he used the fax machine we know that he used at least some of Mattel's resources, however slight. He did sign a confidentiality and non-compete. MGA knew this but went ahead anyway in conducting business.

Let's suppose that I have some apple seeds. Someone steals the seeds and plants them. Within a few years the thief has become a major apple supplier. I find evidence of the theft. Do I have a right to get my seeds back? To get a few apples? Or to get a part or all of the thief's apple business? Sure, he supplied the water and the land but they were my seeds!
[ link to this | view in thread ]