harsh... a buddy of mine works at Mattel and was telling me about this case. Originally the Bratz designer who worked at Mattel at the time, wanted Mattel to release it. But Mattel refused stating that the line did not match their corporate values and essentially too ghetto for them. So he left and went to MGA to begin the Bratz line and the rest is history. while I completely understand the lawsuit by Mattel, if they had only put aside their almost racial and economic "Barbie" bias against the Bratz concept and released them in the first place, they would have had increased revenues, less competition and no legal fees. The fact that they are going after MGA after the fact due to their huge success is legally understandable, but hypocritical.
You said it. People can joke all they want about Bratz, but the underlying precedent of this ruling is frightening for any toy designer. Look at most any toy designers history, and they often work for a larger company and strike out on their own when they have an idea the old/stodgy company doesn't like. And while people might grumble about it, it happens and it's accepted. A ruling like this basically says "If you worked or interned at Mattel and then create something similar to us, we own you..." That's a bit of a stretch, but it's sick. It kills any chance of the small guy coming up with something cool and if you look at the junk most U.S. toy company's put out they need an infusion of new ideas. Mattel can suck it.
Well, that really isn't much different from from most company policies regarding ideas formed while working there. Considering the designer was being paid by Mattel during the time he designed them, it isn't unusual for companies to claim IP. Colleges do this with research, and every company I've ever worked for has you basically signing away your rights to products you develop while in their employ.
True. But in this case, Mattel knew what this guys plan was. Did not pursue it. And then he went off on his own, and proved his idea in the market. If this were an idea that Mattel had and he "repurposed" it, it's one thing. They clearly wouldn't touch it. And now he's punished for being right in his ideas. It's all screwed up. And honestly, it sucks.
Bratz completists rejoice! I'm going to go patent my idea of a line of rodent dolls dressed in skanky clothing called RATZ.
yeah, but it still doesn't side step the fact that it was a product developed FOR Mattel, and paid for BY Mattel... whether or not they actually developed it seems irrelevant. Remember Rocky V? Remember how Rocky spent all his time training Tommy Gunn? He nurtured him, took him in, and then he left Rocky for the Don King promoter guy and made him a fortune. Didn't you feel bad for Rocky?
As Locomoco pointed out earlier in the thread, the Bratz idea would be the property of Mattel because Carter Bryant was working there when the line was conceived. It's hard to know exactly what happened without having access to the particulars of the case, but it's safe to assume that Mattel has solid documentation showing that Bryant developed the idea while working there, and he probably signed an employment agreement that clearly gave Mattel rights to anything that he worked on there. None of this should be surprising, and I'm curious about your assertion that: Can you cite some recent examples of this?
You got me there. I'm thinking more of the old school 1960s/1970s toy design culture that was a tad more pragmatic. Also mixed in with my brief stint in the world of entertainment (which was not that entertaining) where people would routinely brainstorm ideas for projects and may or may not strike out on their own to fund/produce it. Still sucks. Hits me the same way when I heard that Hasbro and Kenner are one in the same and ditto with Matchbox and Hot Wheels. Less variety. More brands.
I'm totally on Mattel's side in this, but it's probably just because I'm hoping they pull those awful things off of the market for good.
