+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Most unjust court ruling in recent times (/showthread.php?tid=78831)
Most unjust court ruling in recent times - DaviDC. - 05-29-2009
Why Should Mattel Get Future Plans For New Bratz Dolls?
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090527/0143345018.shtml
I hope this ruling gets overturned on appeal.
Re: Most unjust court ruling in recent times - OWC Jamie - 05-29-2009
Mike Masnick must be holding a wee bit of MGA stock. :-)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a.ZaD149jqSk&refer=us
What's sad is how many jobs have been cut from Mattel amd MGA to pay for court costs.
Re: Most unjust court ruling in recent times - vision63 - 05-29-2009
It's very frustrating because you know Mattel was "never" going to market a slutty doll. They must have spoken with Disney on how to thwart innovation.
Re: Most unjust court ruling in recent times - silvarios - 05-30-2009
If you take the following to be gospel:
From Comments wrote:
Answers:
A) YES - he designed the original Bratz dolls while employed at Mattel, as proved in court.
B) YES - he used parts of Barbie dolls to build his prototypes. He did it during working hours. He involved colleagues. He used Mattel supplies to draw the sketches.
C) YES - he was a doll designer at Mattel.
D) YES - as is standard in these corporations, he signed a contract that stated any products he created during his employment with Mattel belonged to Mattel. Fair or not, he signed it.
Seems like the guy used his current employer's resources and money to design IP (which is owned by the company as he did this while he worked there) and sold the infringing IP to another company. If all this is true, I would say the ruling seems just.
Nathan
Re: Most unjust court ruling in recent times - MysteryGuest - 05-30-2009
Ugh.
Back when I working the toy business in the 70s it was cut-throat beyond belief. I had to get out. Doesn't seem to have changed any.
I can't imagine signing a slave labor contract like that.
He used Mattel supplies to draw the sketches.
What does that mean? He took a sheet of paper and a pencil and roughed out an idea over a sandwich at lunch? Somebody looked over his shoulder and asked what he was doing, and he told them, so he "involved colleagues." Gimme a break.
The fact is, Mattel would have never done the Bratz dolls, that's not their style. If he'd submitted it to them, they would have buried it, which is what they plan to do now.
I remember that lovely scene at the end of season 2 of Mad Men where Duck, thinking Don is firmly under contract, rampages through a meeting issuing ugly threats and then Don says, "I don't have a contract."
Not really. - RAMd®d - 05-30-2009
I can't imagine signing a slave labor contract like that.
Slave labor? That's a load of BS.
He took a sheet of paper and a pencil and roughed out an idea over a sandwich at lunch? Somebody looked over his shoulder and asked what he was doing, and he told them, so he "involved colleagues." Gimme a break.
First, you ignore silvarios' initial disclaimer, then you seem to make up a scenario to suit your bias.
Or perhaps you have first hand information of the situation that wasn't mentioned in the article and you failed to share with the court.
Re: Not really. - MysteryGuest - 05-30-2009
No matter how you look at it, this claim:
He used Mattel supplies to draw the sketches.
Adds up to nothing at all, certainly not hundreds of millions of dollars.