US Court DIDN’T HANDLE the Barbie vs Bratz case correctly!! (Mattel sucks)

8 Jun

This is a reasonable response to an article posted up about the whole Mattel and MGA scandal. I feel these responses make sense. Okay, I can understand that if someone takes someone else’s ideas, but the drawings look nothing like the Bratz. They look like Diva Starz. And then when Mattel tried to make look alikes, they failed, so what would they have b=done with the line? Also, they waited several years to sue Bryant, when Bratz came out in 2001. Oh, they just NOW figured out the doll was theirs? Come one court! You’re smarter than this…maybe not, this is America….I bet you anything Mattel promised the courts a bit of their surplus to get them to help them win. Ridiculous. Well, Mattel this just isn’t affecting MGA, this is threatening you as well. Fortunate for Mattel, they have more than Barbie. Well, as MGA only had Bratz. What will be the future? I hope Bratz can stay. I don’t know how, but I feel fans should come together and find a way to help serve justice to the jerks Mattel.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090527/0143345018.shtml?threaded=true
jimbob says:
Let’s forget the legalese for a moment, and cut to morality. Carter Bryant worked at Mattel; he came up with an idea for a doll, that Mattel was NEVER going to develop; Mattel was never presented the idea — that would have been political suicide for Carter to present a doll idea to compete with Golden Girl Barbie. Carter shops the idea to another company. Morally, Mattel should have been mad at Carter for giving ideas to competitors; that would anger anyone. (of course it took Mattel years to realize that Bratz was actually Mattel’s "idea" in the first place!) Yet, Mattel dropped its suit against Carter, the only real culprit in the entire matter.
MGA did not break into Mattel’s El Segundo Watergate Hotel and steal ideas or secrets, nor did it arrest Carter and move him to MGA’s Guantanamo Bay and subject him to waterboarding to get him to confess his ideas.
MGA told Carter to quit Mattel, then spent tremendous amounts of money and effort in developing the Bratz Franchise — Mattel did not, nor did Carter. MGA developed the Bratz line thru talent, innovation, and plain old hard work.
Mattel with all of their resources and marketing and product development expertise tried to develop dolls to compete with Bratz thru Flava and MyScene, and failed miserably.
It seems morally odd to me that Mattel, who supposedly had "their ideas" stolen by MGA, could not even execute their very own ideas!
Since the beginning of mankind, it has been human nature to learn, then to take what is learned and apply it to life, and aspire to improve, innovate, and implement new ideas.
Yet the morality of this has been legally translated so that anyone trying to improve an idea is a thief. If it weren’t for improvements, innovations, and implementation, we would all be driving Model T Fords and playing Pong.
We would not be sitting here on personal computers, that’s for sure, if it weren’t for adapting a main frame computer to personal use.
Bottom line, MGA stole nothing from Mattel. MGA took the germ of an idea and improved, innovated, and implemented.
Mattel did not develop the concept, nor would they have if they had seen it. Carter chose to change employers.
Mattel didn’t like it, and will do all that is possible to put a competitor out of business for daring to "build a better mousetrap."

ks says:
This is what happened: Bryant came up with the Bratz concept at home in Missouri six months after quitting his doll design job at Mattel. They burned him out. Already a talented doll designer, he would sketch doll designs at home in his spare time even while working a day job as a retail clerk. He got the Bratz idea from a Steve Madden add in a fashion magazine (big head, big feet). Six months later, he was ready to go back to work at Mattel in California. Though he signed an agreement giving Mattel ownership of everything he did on- and off-the-job, he didn’t stop working on the doll he created in Missouri. He naively thought it was no big deal. Mattel didn’t pay well and a lot of people were doing work on the side. He tried to sell his original concept a month or two later to a toy company in New York. They didn’t want it. He continued to dream about someday having a doll of his own and did some work on it in his spare time, unfortunately while still employed by Mattel. A few months later he called a former co-worker and friend to see if she could help him do something with it. She led him to MGA where he quickly struck a deal. MGA told him to quit his job right away. But Bryant gave Mattel a two week notice. Big mistake. He thought he was doing them a favor by giving them two more weeks of his time to wrap up his projects. He should have left right away. Mattel used that to stab him in the back.

Mattel spent 100 million dollars on lawyers, throwing 100 wild theories at the judge and jury about all the sinister things Bryant and MGA did to hurt them. There was enough evidence to disprove all of them. But all the negativity was overwhelming. Eventually Mattel succeeded in making the judge think Bryant and MGA were evil. But the jury was pretty smart. They found that Bryant worked on Bratz while a Mattel employee and awarded 10 million dollars for infringement (out of the 1.4 billion Mattel wanted). It was a fair amount, considering Bryant did do some of the development at Mattel. It amounts to about a third of what Bryant was paid by MGA for all of his work. It is interesting to note that the jury did not give Mattel ownership of the earliest Bratz drawings. But the two weeks that Bryant stayed at Mattel after signing with MGA cost MGA 100 million in penalties.

So, Bryant did some work on the concept while still a Mattel employee. It didn’t add much to the overall idea. He made a 3D mock-up using Barbie parts. Big deal. He never sculpted anything. All the actual doll design work was all done by MGA. The dolls that eventually came to market look very little like Bryant’s original drawings. This was all clear to the jury. End of story, right? No… the judge apparently now has other ideas. If he had thought to ask the jury if Mattel should have been given all of Bratz, they would have certainly said no. Why didn’t he ask them that question? Now he wants to just hand over all of MGA’s Bratz art worth billions of dollars and freely give it to Mattel? Mattel is even supposed to get all the designs and schematics to MGA’s newest dolls just because they bear the Bratz name (Babyz, Lil’ Bratz, etc.)? Come on. Something isn’t right here.

Karen says:
I’ve been a doll collector for a long time. I was never really aware of mattels history of sueing people till I got online. MGA doesn’t appeart to be the first time has gone out of their way to use the legal system to their advantage.

This case has really put a bad vibe to purchasing anything from mattel in future. I have Barbie and Bratz, the thing I have a issue with is MGA did things with Bratz that Mattel forgot to do with Barbie.

The quality of the bratz and their accessories became far superior to what mattel was producing in their playline. Where barbie had cardboard accessories, Bratz came with handbags and backpacks that could really open, detailed outfits that were different and interesting.

So, it was not just this Carter Bryant fellow that did all that. MGA too the time to make just a regular playline doll collectable, where mattel just threw in useless cardboard and uninteresting things with their playline dolls.

Oh yes, you can buy a special edition barbie for more $$$$$ – but why are you going to spend more money when you can get a nice doll with cool accessories for $20?

Mattel has gotten to a point of wanting to pump out the same glitter covered princess dolls in their playline.

At some point between 2001 and 2009 they had something called "competition". They started to try different things, they started to try making better quality and more inventive things for Barbie.

So in a lot of ways Bratz was making them better.

Bratz came out in 2001 (if I remember right). Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the they started sueing in around 2004.

I have a feeling, what probably happened is they didn’t care originally. They figured the bratz would crash and burn, but then after a few years they realized Bratz was not crashing and burning but becoming pretty damn popular.

This was not a case of OMG they stole our Dolls lets sue. Seems like to me it was more a case of OMG how can we kill these dolls.

Between here and there you have me a former Barbie collector who will not be purchasing anything from mattel any longer. So maybe they think they’ve won. They can go on making a million dolls clad in ‘pink’, go on making glittering princess dolls in ugly dresses that have nothing interesting to offer and go on making dolls they call ‘limited edition’ or ‘gold label’ – but they will not be getting any $$$ out of me any longer.

Marie says:
I think its hilarious that anyone can say that Bratz are just ‘dolls’ this is a global multi million dollar brand. As pointed out Bratz are the only successful challengers to fifty year old Barbie in decades.

Cases like this make a mockery of the US justice system, particularly as it has such a high profile and is being reported on internationally. It really does raise questions on how the ruling decisions are being arrived at.

Me:Okay, these people make a lot of sense. I’m going to tell you about these American courts, they are crooked. They will do anything for the most money, or the company with the most money in this case. What is wrong with America? Clearly, the jury is unclear about the whole idea. I feel people should be on the case who know enough about the topic. Some just hate Bratz, but that excludes the fact that Bratz should not be removed from shelves. That was a ridiculous claim, and the courts have really bad issues for not seeing through this case. It is obvious Mattel wanted Bratz out of the way so they can remove the competition. Well, guess what Mattel, you just put yourself in doo-doo, because I see a HUGE decline in your business due to the fact that no one likes you anymore. And we have all lost faith in the US government and their "American" idea of "justice." Then again, things have been going downhill for a while now, and though cort systems are trying to improve, the results are slow in showing….so all I have to say is the court screwed over MGA. Mattel, the temper-tantrum-throwers got their way, and the court is satisfied. Well, the consumers aren’t and when they see the decline this holiday season, I guarantee there will be riots and marches to keep the Bratz dolls..somewhere, somehow. Better yet, why not let the children speak for themselves! See what they have to say! They have voices. How can you teach kids to play nice, when you can’t play nice, hm, Mattel?

~Over and Out~

Advertisements

2 Responses to “US Court DIDN’T HANDLE the Barbie vs Bratz case correctly!! (Mattel sucks)”

  1. yearzero762 2009/06/18 at 06:05 #

    Evidence?
    Many of the comments here claim, overtly or by implication, that the judges involved have been bribed. I would hope that the commentators — who proclaim their own intelligence and reasonableness just a bit too much — would recognize that that is a serious charge. In fact, it is an accusation that the several federal judges who have now ruled on the case in Mattel’s favor have engaged in criminal activity. If any of you have a shred of evidence of that, by all means provide it. And not just here. If there was the slightest truth to the accusation, then all of you — with your self-declared intelligence — should be contacting the Justice Department. But then again, since these commentators are undoubtedly just making stuff up as they go along, I’m sure they can neither provide any proof here or anywhere else.

    Like

    • soratothamax 2009/06/27 at 09:57 #

      Re: Evidence?
      Well, really I don’t actually think Mattel bribed them, but they might as well have. It was so easy for Mattel to make claims on a doll that had been out FOUR years before they even claimed it. It sounds fishy. Some things in the government can be a little shady. But in this case, I just feel the win was too easy.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: