Newspapers Gather In Secret (With An Antitrust Lawyer) To Collude Over Paywalls
U2 Manager: Free Is The Enemy Of Good; And It's Moral To Protect Old Business Models

Why Should Mattel Get Future Plans For New Bratz Dolls?

Legal Issues

from the gross-injustice dept

Fri, May 29th 2009 06:58am -

Last year, we wrote about a somewhat horrific court ruling against MGA Entertainment, the makers of Bratz dolls, after getting sued by Mattel. If you don’t follow the doll business, Bratz is really the first doll to successfully compete against the massively successful Barbie franchise in ages. However, the guy who came up with Bratz had worked at Mattel prior to going off on his own. Of course, this is the history of many different innovative companies. If you come up with a better idea while working at one company, it’s a good thing that you can go off and build your own company. As we pointed out at the time, this is the story of plenty of successful tech companies. Steve Wozniak was at HP when he built the first Apple computer (and continued to work there for some time after Apple was moving forward). Robert Noyce helped found Fairchild (and later Intel) after growing frustrated at Shockley Transistor. Hell, William Shockley founded Shockley Transistor after feeling he didn’t get enough respect at Bell Labs. Yet, here’s a toy designer at Mattel who’s entire operation is getting shut down because he came up with the idea while still employed at Mattel?

Even if you grant the somewhat troubling premise that the concept for the dolls was created at Mattel, at best you could make an argument that Mattel had some rights to an injunction and profits from the first generation of those dolls. Yet, the judge not only ruled that, but also that MGA had to give up all such dolls, and hand over all sorts of confidential info, including “all related products, designs, customer information and ‘know-how’ for a planned 2010 Bratz line.” It’s difficult to see any justification at all for forcing them to hand over future plans that had nothing to do with what the guy created while still at Mattel. MGA has now filed an emergency appeal, noting that if it does hand over such info and assets, it would have “devastating and irreversible consequences,” which seems quite accurate. All in all, this seems like Mattel simply trying to stop competition, and it’s a shame that the US court system seems to be helping.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: mattel, mga entertainment

220 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Why Should Mattel Get Future Plans For New Bratz Dolls?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
220 Comments
Lauren (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:not just dolls....

No they aren’t just dolls, they’re money….;)if I had come up with Bratz or Barbie I’d be a rich Billionaire! Yea, this is obviously a scam so Mattel can knock off the competition. That’s just like anyone who fights against a big long-lasting company, like Disney. Imagine someone suing Disney…they lost the case just thinking about it! And Mattel probably made up half the evidence they produced, they’re really crooked. More justice needs to be served than this. This government has a strange way of handling things. I still think Mattel offered the court half it’s surplus….

Anonymous Coward says:

Wow

this is absolute crap. Unless he created the idea while at work or used company secrets, Mattel should have no say in the future of Bratz and I don’t understand how they have a leg to stand on legally. I would refuse to give over the information. What’s the worst that could happen? They would shut you down? Oh wait that was already going to happen.

Aaron Martin-Colby (profile) says:

PR

And to the few who are keeping track of this, Mattel’s reputation has taken a dive off of a cliff. That’s some pretty long-lasting damage.

And what I think is really important is that Mattel will not release a Bratz doll, themselves, since they don’t want to compete with Barbie.

As such, there will be a massive vacuum in the market for sexualized, “mature” girl dolls that will be damn-near-instantly filled with yet another competitor. Good job Mattel.

spencerMatthewP says:

I'm of split mind on this

A couple years ago a friend of mine who works near the Hanford nuclear reservation said he was in a meeting where they were talking about some low level waste that needs to be cleaned up. He then thought, well all I have to do is come up with something that will clean that up easily and I’m set for life. The problem is: had he not been at work, he would not have know of the problem, and therefore would not have had the idea to come up with a solution. In essence, even if he uses his own time to come up with the solution; it is right that the company still owns it because of how he found out about the problem.

It’s possible that there is something like that here. Perhaps, had this man not been working for Mattel, he would never have been in the situation where inspiration struck. Certainly he would not have seen any of the marketing data that showed him how to make a popular toy.

That’s the unfortunate aspect of this type of thing. All too often we sign the contract that says anything we invent while employed by the company belongs to the company. The reason for these contracts are to prevent the creation of new Apples and Intels etc. New companies mean competition. And we all know how businesses hate competition.

It’s not right. But then again, no one forced him to work at mattel, nor did they make him sign that contract.

Brian O says:

Re: I'm of split mind on this

“it is right that the company still owns it because of how he found out about the problem.”

You are completely wrong. Let’s say that I go see some movie this summer and something in the movie gives me a GREAT idea for a book. I then go write a book and make millions because it’s awesome. Do I then owe EVERYTHING I came up with to the creators of the movie because I wouldn’t have had the idea without having seen the movie?

Look, this is how innovation WORKS. Everyone comes up with ideas with inspiration from all sources. The source of the idea doesn’t matter unless it’s truly a theft of someone else’s idea (for example, stealing a trade secret).

Something like “being made aware of an opportunity to create a business” which the company you’re working for will never create is NOT theft.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I'm of split mind on this

lets take your idea and run with it.

Tell me, what line of dolls did Mattel have him designing? Was it Barbie? If so, Bratz was not on the table and he is not obligated to share his personal endevors.

I happen to work with for a datacenter company. Nothing says that I cannot take everything that I have learned over the years through all of my work experience and open my own datacenter. hell I used to work in the Callcenter industry and I have applied all I know from my experiences there to what I do now. Do I owe the former companies anything? hell no. it is called learning from other’s mistakes and finding a better way of doing it: INNOVATION!!!

Now, I am in no way a fan of Bratz, as a matter of fact, my daughter will never have one anywhere near her. It will end up in my chipper before I have a doll in my house that tries to make being ghetto cool. I do not condone any doll that looks like a hoochie mama hooker. No thanks. For the flamers, A suzie homemaker doll like Barbie is better than any bratz whore any day. I teach my daughter that self image is just that… just an image. No doll can harm her self image if she knows how she is supposed to be.

As for the situation, the designer owes nothing to Mattel. He is has innovated and it has paid off. It is just unfortunate that he designed that crap. Regardless he is in the right. Mattel is just pissed that they have a competitor and that Barbie is not the queen bitch of the universe anymore.

Lauren (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I'm of split mind on this

Well, what they didn’t put in papers is that Carter Bryant did offer the supposed “drawings” to Mattel, but they rejected it. So he made new drawings and gave them to MGA. But because they looked so “similar” Mattel sued. Well, the thing is MGA sued first because Myscene looked so much like Bratz, but then Mattel retaliated by saying that they could because they had the rights to it in the first place, and now it made this big mess. But I think it’s a little far-fetched to remove the dolls completely. This is supposed to be for kids. How can they teach children to work together and get along and not be greedy with their toys, if they don’t preach what they teach?

Pete (profile) says:

Re: I'm of split mind on this

First off. Horrible example. I live in Spokane, less than a couple of hours from the reservation. I don’t need to work for Siemens or any other company in the business to know that there is a problem. The fact that the reservation exists is enough to know that the problem exists.
The only point your argument can make is that he was tipped off that a company was looking into cleaning up low level waste and therefore had the opportunity to beat them to the punch.
And as far as non-competition contracts, they are in my opinion much to broad and far reaching. In most cases they effectively make it illegal to form or work for any company that may be any sort of competition. An usually for some time after you are no longer employed at the company where you signed it.
As for the Mattel case, the only reason Mattel should have any right to Bratz is if he did in fact use company time, funds, or resources for the initial work on brats. The the thought that any ideas one my have while working for a company are owned by said company is absolutely ridiculous. As far as I’m concerned its nothing more than anti competitive bs. And the judge who set the precedent for it should be shot.

NullOp says:

Rights?

A lot of companies feel they are owners of whatever you come up with while in their employ. That reads 24/7, btw. It translates into “We own you!” If someone leaves company A, forms company B, and comes up with a competing idea then, clearly, they had it while employed at company A. The entire Tao of American business is to lock-in the customer, suppress/destroy competition and maximize profit while minimizing quality.

david says:

Re: Rights?

A company has no problem letting you go with little to no excuse by blaming the economy on their poor investments and bad planning. At any time they can let you go and all of your hard work and efforts have come to an end for the company.

On the other hand, an employee that leaves a company and pursues to benefit their investment (themselves) ends up in court loosing ALL of their great ideas and talents to a Judge with a very bad judgment call.

cjm says:

Would love some more clarification (Without reading the entire legal briefs)…

A) Did he start WORK on Bratz while employed at Mattel?
B) Did he use ANY company resources (Mattel’s) to do ANY preliminary work on Bratz while employed at Mattel?
C) Did he work in the doll design division (whatever) of Mattel (or was he the janitor)
D) Was there a signed contract?

The answer of those questions can change my opinion of this matter completely.

You do not get to get paid $$ to design a new product, then take that product to a competitor (or start your own company). You do not get to use another companies resources to design a new product (or for personal benefit). You do not get to break NDA’s that you signed.

Answers says:

Re: Asnwers to cjm

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.

ChurchHatesTucker (profile) says:

Re: Re: Asnwers to cjm

“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.”

Yes. And they didn’t do anything with it. So he went off on his own and established a successful line of toys.

NOW Mattel wants a cut?! Sorry, too late. Case closed. Should have paid more attention to your underlings. Move along, nothing to see here.

Me says:

Re: Re: Re: Asnwers to cjm

Mattel couldn’t do anything with it, because the designer never presented the Bratz designs to Mattel, but instead offered them to the competition.

BTW, even if he had shared his designs with Mattel and the company decided to do nothing with it, they would still be Mattel property, because that’s what the designer was paid by Mattel to do: develop dolls FOR MATTEL. That was all clearly stated in the contract he signed.

Zero says:

Re: Re: Re: Asnwers to cjm

Wrong, wrong, wrong. As the jury found, MGA lied about where Bratz came from for years, hiding that the Mattel designer had come up with them and falsely claiming that MGA itself invented the dolls. Not that this will sink in with you, since I’m sure you also think they should be rewarded for that lying by saying Mattel was too “late” in figuring it out.

ks says:

Re: Re: Asnwers to cjm

NO – The jury was hung on the question of when the Bratz designer Bryant first conceived of the doll. The first set of drawings remain his because he created them before he started at Mattel.

And even if the jury gave other original drawings to Mattel, should that allow Mattel full and total control of all Bratz IP generated by dozens of MGA employees – including the body sculpt which Bryant had no hand in? If anything, Mattel should get nothing more than half of what the Bryant made in royalties.

Roxy says:

Re: Re:

The real question is: Why is nobody scrutinizing Mattel? Barbie stole designs and ideas from the German Bild Lilli doll. Mattel subsequently stole ideas from the Jem series, Sindy, Tiffany Taylor and similar doll lines. And now Mattel cries cry foul?

Barbie was created by Ruth Handler, who directly copied the Lilli doll in 1959, before Mattel officially purchased the rights to the Bild Lilli doll in 1964.

Chandra Kinkead-Bessette says:

Re: Why? Because...

Yes, Carter Bryant did work in the doll design division and he admitted to getting his ideas from Barbie. Also he created those designs for the “My Scene” collection originally, so yes Mattel does have a legal right to destroy these dolls(which my two older nieces have outgrown and my brother’s kids are not allowed to play with, mercifully.), but that’s not the point of my post.

As an aunt, I have always been appalled by these dolls, which have promoted a selfish, consumerist “it’s what’s on the outside that matters, not on the inside” mentality and a boy-crazy, money-hungry attitude while telling impressionsble little girls that if they are not rich, thin or fashionable enough, they do not matter in the grand scheme of life.

Thanks to these dolls, my oldest niece (who was an avid Bratz collector for 7 years) stands in front of her mirror for hours crying that her hair, body, and clothing aren’t good enough and refuses to drink milk for fear of getting fat, so I’m glad they will be gone soon. Maybe this will be the catalyst for the next generation of girls to be something more than walking clothes hangers or playthings for boys at their schools.

I’m no Barbie fan at all. In fact, I’d much rather my nieces have Demi Lovato or Selena Gomez dolls (girls who have acheived things on their own and do things the way THEY see fit.) than either Bratz or Barbie, but as that’s not my call (that, and Selena Gomez dolls don’t exist…yet), but since Barbie is the lesser of the two evils, you go Mattel!!!

Maybe now we can have our ambitious, career-focused, can-do little girls back, instead of the vapid, fashion-and-makeup-crazed-boy-obsessed little “prostitots” that Bratz dolls have created.

Why can’t the toy industry create a few female dolls who defy gender steretoypes, such as heavy metal musicians, (I’m not talking musicians marketed to adults such as Angela Gossow or Alexis Brown, but I’d like to see some “kiddie metal dolls” with albums about following your dreams, doing well in school, doing your own thing, being a good person, not following peer pressure, etc instead of this “Bratz: Rock Angelz” and “Barbie Diaries” pablum that parents and other well-meaning adults so happily feed to the girls of the world), politicians, lawyers, artists, brain surgeons, pilots, mail carriers, construction workers, paramedics, college professors, journalists, disc jockeys,superheroes (no more Barbie dressed as Wonder Woman or Supergirl, as that is a slap in the face to those of us who looked up to these heroes as an anthesis to Barbie and Skipper as little girls.) a few wizards and dragonriders (no more cutesy, giggling pink dragons, please) for girls that love fantasy/sci-fi, instead of the usual teachers, nurses, fashion models, pop stars, veterinarians, mommies, baby doctors, pop stars, what have you. And everything DOES NOT have to be pink, purple, or white that comes with these dolls. They CAN and SHOULD be the actual real-life color of the item they are supposed to be.

We should have higher hopes for the little girls of our generation than to see them grow up like supposed “role models” such as Barbie, Bratz, Lindsay Lohan, and Hilary Duff. What happened to Women’s Liberation? Is it out of style because it isn’t a group of vapid, giggling women bowing to men’s every wish and want? Let’s have a little more respect, ambition and dignity for our daughters, sisters, nieces and grandaughters and tell these toy companies what WE want, instead of them telling us.

Kaja says:

Re: Re: Why? Because...

Ok – now this is just out of control – and actually really burns me up…you have quite a tirade based on the premise that some dolls are basically corrupting the minds or at the very least highly responsible for the warped sense of being that your niece and other girls like her have.
I find it quite amazing that parents etc. are very quick to look for simple blame – when really, what part of the blame do they accept? It is shameful and extremely naive that you think some toys are to blame for the low self opinion or lack of morals of our children.

Clearly the parents here are not spending quality time playing WITH their children – rather leaving them in a room to amuse themselves. My wife and I love playing with our daughter – with yes, you guessed it, Bratz dolls and Barbie dolls at times – may not be my choice – but I take an interest in my children and their interests. When we play stories – we don’t pretend the dolls are prostitutes and making out with each other – we pretend they have picnics and go to the beach or movies….May be corny – but it’s innocent and fun.

I find as a parent hearing other adults carrying on about the images etc. being bombarded on our kids total hypocracy – it is up to us to keep it real for our kids. We are sewing the seeds about what is innappropriate by judging with an adult mind and making a fuss around our kids. The fact is, kids are just playing dress up – always have, always will….Mothers should be examining their own behaviour around daughters before placing blame on toys, tv, singers etc. Fathers should be looking at their own attitude to women etc and remembering that their sons get their biggest example from them!

We need to get off this blame game and accept that aside from putting blinkers on our kids, stuffing their ears with cotton wool and removing their imaginations – WE have to guide them and their attitudes as parents. Whilst my daughter may love dressing up and acting out – she certainly knows from us that people come in all shapes and sizes – have all sorts of ambitions – none better or worse…we explain and talk to her about what is pretend and what is real, what is appropriate and what is not…

For the record too – watch a Bratz or Barbie movie one day – you might be surprised – yes, they can be about dressing up and shopping, hair, make-up etc – but that’s what girls are curious about – the stories actually do have substance though – they are about friendship, values and respect for each other….

And all the comments about Bratz doll appearance – I find the Barbie shape over the last 50 years far more disturbing – these are based on a so-called ideal woman’s shape that is almost obtainable(?) – as some sort of iconic shape to strive for – At least the Bratz shapes are already comical and clearly not based anywhere near reality!

Wake up people and accept your own role in child raising!

Lauren says:

Re: Re: Why? Because...

Mattel CLAIMED he told them about it in a 2002 case. It was another article long ago. Now he’s claiming that he never told Mattel. I remember that case long ago completely. I’ve been a Bratz fan for years since it’s release. I saw Bratz since it was under construction in 2000. Carter Bryant said Mattel didn’t want it, so he tried to take it to a company in New York, but they didn’t want it. So it ended up in MGA’s hands finally. I’M not all off, YOU need to get your facts straight honey.

And to Chandra, you don’t know too much about the Bratz, do you? You have a misguided opinion. You should learn about things before you judged them.

The thing is the “Barbie” promotes girls to dream big, but it also promotes big breasts, adulthood, pregnancy, and that only blonde “white girls” can achieve (there are barely any other races on their own merit). Bratz don’t really have realistically proportioned bodies, and have gotten better about the clothes. I admit some lines were questionable. But that is what kids asked for. There are a lot of things questionable in children’s media nowadays. But Bratz have diversity, and show us “minority girls” that we are just as equal to white girls, due to the fact that Larian is an immigrant and understands how it feels to be a minority in America, which is why Mattel can never do this correctly, even if they gained the rights to Bratz.

Yea Mattel won, but now they have the so-called “slutty” Bratz, which will taint Barbie’s palace for real now. Mattel didn’t take Bratz until they realized Bratz were successful and we know this. This isn’t the first time somebody from Mattel went to another company and made a doll before their contract was over, it’s just the first one who tried it and were successful.

Susanna says:

Re: Re: Why? Because...

“Thanks to these dolls, my oldest niece (who was an avid Bratz collector for 7 years) stands in front of her mirror for hours crying that her hair, body, and clothing aren’t good enough and refuses to drink milk for fear of getting fat, so I’m glad they will be gone soon. Maybe this will be the catalyst for the next generation of girls to be something more than walking clothes hangers or playthings for boys at their schools.”

I did the same thing as your niece in the early 80’s: looking at my image in the mirror. There wasn’t any bratz dolls – and I didn’t like the superficial-looking, shallow-smile-Barbie one bit. I liked the baby faced Sindy doll by Pedigree. All the consumerist stuff that children absorb comes from the society surrounding them…

I wonder WHERE do you live? There is pornography everywhere. Commercials and music videos draw their inspiration from pornography. That doesn’t come from the dolls.

The Judge says:

The Facts

This article is full of missinformation and inacurracies. The designer – who used Mattel resources to create the designs during work hours – did not start MGA (the company that sells Bratz). The designer never presented his designs to Mattel management, but instead sold them to MGA, who knew they legally belonged to Mattel.

The judge gave Mattel the rights to products based on the original designs developed at Mattel, not to all Bratz related products.

These are the facts. Mike Masnick should get his facts straight before writting and publishing an article.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: The Facts

This article is full of missinformation and inacurracies. The designer – who used Mattel resources to create the designs during work hours – did not start MGA (the company that sells Bratz). The designer never presented his designs to Mattel management, but instead sold them to MGA, who knew they legally belonged to Mattel.

Heh. You accuse me of stating inaccuracies, but I didn’t state anything that contradicted the above. There is a dispute over how/when the dolls were developed. The guy says he developed not on company time, Mattel claims otherwise.

The judge gave Mattel the rights to products based on the original designs developed at Mattel, not to all Bratz related products.

Right, as we said in the post (what inaccuracies?) even if you accept that the original dolls should be Mattel’s, it makes no sense to have them hand over future product plans and no how.

These are the facts. Mike Masnick should get his facts straight before writting and publishing an article.

Well, not quite. First, nothing I said contradicted anything you claimed and second it’s not a “fact” that he developed it on work time. That’s disputed.

Eponymous Coward, AKA Doug (profile) says:

Re: Re: The Facts

Go get ’em, M&M!!

Oh, by the way, M&M Mars wanted me to give you this summons for having those initials. It turns out that they owned those letters since before you were born, and so you are to be eviscerated, and your organs harvested to develop the next-generation of candy shells.

First generation damages, yes. That I can see, if skullduggery is proven. Future plans/profits? Hell no. I say MGA has a quick shred-a-thon, walks into court, and says “Plans? What plans?” Then they can start from scratch, building something eerily similar, but hopefully less trashy. My daughter’s almost doll-age, and I’d prefer she didn’t play with toy skanks.

The Judge says:

Re: Re: The Facts

1) In your article you clearly state that the designer left Mattel to start his own business. I quote: “here’s a toy designer at Mattel who’s entire operation is getting shut down because he came up with the idea while still employed at Mattel”. Well, if the designer doesn’t own the company, how can it possibly be HIS OPERATION???? Additionally you state that: “However, the guy who came up with Bratz had worked at Mattel prior to going off on his own.”, and, “If you come up with a better idea while working at one company, it’s a good thing that you can go off and build your own company.” Here again, you imply that he started his own business. On the other hand, you NEVER state the fact that instead of starting his own business, he simply sold it to a competitor without ever presenting it to his own employer (who paid him to design dolls). Again, your first statement is innacurate (it is NOT his operation) and the following two are misleading at best.

2) After reviewing the evidences, the jury (not the judge) found that the dolls were indeed developed while the designer worked for Mattel, and therefore stating that “there is a dispute over how/when the dolls were developed.” is inaccurate. This has already been determined by the jury.

2) Again, future plans of the doll line based on the ORIGINAL designs that legally belong to Mattel per the contract the designer signed with Mattel. Products that don’t resemble the original designs, are not included. Thus, stating that “future plans that had nothing to do with what the guy created while still at Mattel” is innacurate to the extent that such future plans are based on the very same designs created at Mattel.

hegemon13 says:

Re: Re: Re: The Facts

Good job, Judge, and thanks for being specific. Mike frequently claims and complains that people who “attack” him do so without offering specific examples of when he is wrong. Yet, when they do, as you did, he refuses to respond. I guess you can take this as satisfaction that you cornered him, even if he is to arrogant to admit it. This is among the worst, most biased, and most misinforming articles TechDirt has ever run, and Mike still won’t admit he screwed up.

The Judge says:

Re: Re: Re:2 The Facts

Thanks for the support hegemon13.

Different opinions are great and important, but I find it sad and unnaceptable when the author of the article intentionally misrepresents the facts to support his opinion and bias the readers.

Mike – Just disclose the facts and your own opinion. Let the readers come up with their own.

Lauren says:

Re: Re: Re: The Facts

The jury are just imperfect people and don’t always decide whats best either. So it is a dispute as to whether the jury was right in their accusations, know-it-all. Also, Cartewr Bryant DID present some designs to Mattel, but they said it was too inappropriate for the company, and so he created NEW designs and joined MGA, though Mattel claimed it looked to similar to hie “original” designs. His drawings don’t look anything like the Bratz. They look like the Diva Starz….Also, they ruled that MGA has to remove all Bratz-related products, which is shady in the first place, regardless of any other product. What else does MGA make that is over a billion dollars?

The Judge says:

Re: Re: Re:2 The Facts

Come on, Lauren…
1) To make an argument based on the assumption that “the jury are just imperfect people and don’t always decide whats best” is simply ludicrous. By that rationale, you would conclude that the entire Justice system in the U.S. (which is based on the popular jury) is flawed and therefore worthless. Maybe anarchy would be a better system???
2) It’s ironic how you show your true racist colors by accusing all Americans of being racists and hating Iranians. I really don’t think that’s a compeling argument for defending theft of intelectual property.
3) This country has already established that whether or not you drive that new car you purchased, it is still yours, and not someone else’s to steal. Thus, arguing that because Mattel didn’t make dolls from the designs it owns entitles someone else to steal them, is quite a flawed argument.
4) Discussion board etiquette: You don’t have to post the same comment 4 times to make a point. We get the first time.

Lauren says:

Re: Re: Re:3 The Facts

Mattel CLAIMED he told them about it in a 2002 case. It was another article long ago. Now he’s claiming that he never told Mattel. I remember that case long ago completely. I’ve been a Bratz fan for years since it’s release. I saw Bratz since it was under construction in 2000. Carter Bryant said Mattel didn’t want it, so he tried to take it to a company in New York, but they didn’t want it. So it ended up in MGA’s hands finally. I’M not all off, YOU need to get your facts straight honey.

And to Chandra, you don’t know too much about the Bratz, do you? You have a misguided opinion. You should learn about things before you judged them.

The thing is the “Barbie” promotes girls to dream big, but it also promotes big breasts, adulthood, pregnancy, and that only blonde “white girls” can achieve (there are barely any other races on their own merit). Bratz don’t really have realistically proportioned bodies, and have gotten better about the clothes. I admit some lines were questionable. But that is what kids asked for. There are a lot of things questionable in children’s media nowadays. But Bratz have diversity, and show us “minority girls” that we are just as equal to white girls, due to the fact that Larian is an immigrant and understands how it feels to be a minority in America, which is why Mattel can never do this correctly, even if they gained the rights to Bratz.

Yea Mattel won, but now they have the so-called “slutty” Bratz, which will taint Barbie’s palace for real now. Mattel didn’t take Bratz until they realized Bratz were successful and we know this. This isn’t the first time somebody from Mattel went to another company and made a doll before their contract was over, it’s just the first one who tried it and were successful.

Like I said, it has been my experience that when it came to businesses that seemed to be the biggest, like Disney and Mattel, life is unfair. I’ve seen it happen too many times. Not all court cases, but the ones dealing with Mattel are. As far as I’m concerned it’s a bit far-fetched to give all IDEAS FROM NEXT YEAR to Mattel and force MGA to stop making the latest dolls which have nothing to do with Bryant’s drawings. Mattel just wants to take the dolls that have finally made money, it’s obvious. They are trying to use that line, “we’re trying to be fair.” But it took a long time for them to apply that moral. If MGA had not been successful, do you really think, The Judge, Mattel would’ve pursued them and claimed any rights to Myscene? Nope. It’s all about the money, and you and everyone else knows it.

Lauren says:

Re: Re: Re:3 The Facts

Mattel CLAIMED he told them about it in a 2002 case. It was another article long ago. Now he’s claiming that he never told Mattel. I remember that case long ago completely. I’ve been a Bratz fan for years since it’s release. I saw Bratz since it was under construction in 2000. Carter Bryant said Mattel didn’t want it, so he tried to take it to a company in New York, but they didn’t want it. So it ended up in MGA’s hands finally. I’M not all off, YOU need to get your facts straight honey.

And to Chandra, you don’t know too much about the Bratz, do you? You have a misguided opinion. You should learn about things before you judged them.

The thing is the “Barbie” promotes girls to dream big, but it also promotes big breasts, adulthood, pregnancy, and that only blonde “white girls” can achieve (there are barely any other races on their own merit). Bratz don’t really have realistically proportioned bodies, and have gotten better about the clothes. I admit some lines were questionable. But that is what kids asked for. There are a lot of things questionable in children’s media nowadays. But Bratz have diversity, and show us “minority girls” that we are just as equal to white girls, due to the fact that Larian is an immigrant and understands how it feels to be a minority in America, which is why Mattel can never do this correctly, even if they gained the rights to Bratz.

Yea Mattel won, but now they have the so-called “slutty” Bratz, which will taint Barbie’s palace for real now. Mattel didn’t take Bratz until they realized Bratz were successful and we know this. This isn’t the first time somebody from Mattel went to another company and made a doll before their contract was over, it’s just the first one who tried it and were successful.

Like I said, it has been my experience that when it came to businesses that seemed to be the biggest, like Disney and Mattel, life is unfair. I’ve seen it happen too many times. Not all court cases, but the ones dealing with Mattel are. As far as I’m concerned it’s a bit far-fetched to give all IDEAS FROM NEXT YEAR to Mattel and force MGA to stop making the latest dolls which have nothing to do with Bryant’s drawings. Mattel just wants to take the dolls that have finally made money, it’s obvious. They are trying to use that line, “we’re trying to be fair.” But it took a long time for them to apply that moral. If MGA had not been successful, do you really think, The Judge, Mattel would’ve pursued them and claimed any rights to Myscene? Nope. It’s all about the money, and you and everyone else knows it.

And the double posting thing was an accident I can’t get my computer to reply. Maybe because I wasn’t signed in??…..

The Judge says:

Re: Re: Re:4 The Facts

Oh, Lauren, Lauren… You state: “MGA had not been successful, do you really think, The Judge, Mattel would’ve pursued them and claimed any rights to Myscene? Nope. It’s all about the money, and you and everyone else knows it.”
Of course it’s about the money. If someone steals a property of yours worth $0.50, would you invest the time, energy, and money (=lawyers) to recoup your $0.50? Certainly not, no matter how entitled you are to those $0.50. Yet, if someone steals a property of yours worth $1MM would you invest the time, energy and money to recoup it. Probably so… Thus, my dear Lauren, it is about the money and there’s nothing wrong with it. Anyone would fight to recoup what’s rightfully his/hers so long as the cost-benefit makes sense.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 The Facts

Mattel CLAIMED he told them about it in a 2002 case. It was another article long ago. Now he’s claiming that he never told Mattel. I remember that case long ago completely. I’ve been a Bratz fan for years since it’s release. I saw Bratz since it was under construction in 2000. Carter Bryant said Mattel didn’t want it, so he tried to take it to a company in New York, but they didn’t want it. So it ended up in MGA’s hands finally. I’M not all off, YOU need to get your facts straight honey.

BOY BRAT says:

Re: Re: Re: The Facts

UMMM…
I understand that he did present his design to Mattel and they didnt want it because
1: they didnt want to compete with Barbie and
2: they thought the dolls were trashy

It was only many years after Bratz became popular combined with declining market share for Barbie that Mattel decided to go to court against MGA

hegemon13 says:

Re: Re: The Facts

Mike, I have just lost a LOT of respect for you. This response is a blatant and ridiculous backpedal, and you know as well as your readers that you left critical, game-changing information out of the article. You also made blatant implications in contradiction of the facts, as outlined by The Judge in his response. Your claimed lack of bias falls flat. Learn to admit and apologize when you are wrong, and you will gain a lot more credibility and respect from your readers. I appreciate and agree with a lot of your articles, but misrepresenting a case (for whatever reason) just casts doubt on the rest of your articles.

Anonymous Coward says:

Happens all of the time ...

Worked for a start-up where the guy had worked for several companies in the field during his career.
The last company laid him off; he worked in a completely different field for three years and then started his own company in the industry he had been a part of before and developed a innovative less costly product.
After he developed it, marked it and had sold a few units, a company (A large wealthy company) he had worked for six years earlier went to court in South Carolina and had a judge issue a TRO against his company and ordered them to cease all operations for “stealing” their non patented design and violating the spirit of a expired NDA (No non compete at all in place). Long story short … he didn’t have the money to buy lawyers to match their team of lawyers. Lost the case and was ordered to turn over ALL company records, computers, designs and hardware related to the product, and agree to NEVER work in the field again. I don’t know the exact details of the legal stuff but I know for a fact that the design was original and would have been popular in the market. He had years of experience in the field working for several companies and as a independent contractor.
Mattel – Bratt maker music/movie industry – innovators and users or the case i talk about here …. they are not different than what most of Mike’s site is about.

You can have the best, most innovative, well executed product out there but you will go nowhere unless you have money and connections to compete in the courtroom and political back offices.

How can a “normal” citizen without massive resources (both financial and political) innovate nowadays?

Curl says:

You're on sand on this one

Normally I’m pretty sympathetic to TechDirt, but IMO you’re on sand on this one. He worked for Mattel, he came up with an idea directly relevant to what he was employed to do, and he withheld it from them.

This comment hits it on the head:

“A lot of companies feel they are owners of whatever you come up with while in their employ. That reads 24/7, btw.”

The reason they feel that way is because you sign a contract that says so. Fair, unfair, innovative, not innovative: these completely miss the point. He signed a contract.

Look, you can either be an entrepreneur or an employee. But should be an expect to be an “entrepreneur on a salary” with the upside of the former and the security of the latter. If he thought he was the kind of entrepreneur who could invent a new toy line without Mattel’s help, he shouldn’t have gone back to work there while working on the Bratz.

Lauren says:

Re: You're on sand on this one

The jury are just imperfect people and don’t always decide whats best either. So it is a dispute as to whether the jury was right in their accusations, know-it-all. Also, Cartewr Bryant DID present some designs to Mattel, but they said it was too inappropriate for the company, and so he created NEW designs and joined MGA, though Mattel claimed it looked to similar to hie “original” designs. His drawings don’t look anything like the Bratz. They look like the Diva Starz….Also, they ruled that MGA has to remove all Bratz-related products, which is shady in the first place, regardless of any other product. What else does MGA make that is over a billion dollars?

And if anyone didn’t notice this article is being sarcastic and talking about companies in general that relate to the situation. Geez, people have to be such know-it-all Coughs*Judge* give it a rest.

CharlieM (profile) says:

Dissagree ChurchHatesTucker

“Yes. And they didn’t do anything with it. So he went off on his own and established a successful line of toys.

NOW Mattel wants a cut?! Sorry, too late. Case closed. Should have paid more attention to your underlings. Move along, nothing to see here.”

If got paid for an idea (Bratz) – took the money, bought groceries with it, whatever. It is up to Mattel to do what they want with the idea. They can sit on it, use it, joke about it, whatever… but the guy got his money and that is it, job done.

If I make you a watch (that you paid for), and you don’t use it, I don’t have the right to take it back from you.

You paid for it, do what you want with it… same concept IMO

ChurchHatesTucker (profile) says:

Re: Dissagree ChurchHatesTucker

“If got paid for an idea (Bratz) – took the money, bought groceries with it, whatever. It is up to Mattel to do what they want with the idea.”

I’m fine with that as long as Mattel does *something* with the idea. Patent/Trademark/Copyright (whichever) just SOMEthing. They did dick-all. He went and did something. Punishing that is counterproductive. Literally.

jimbob says:

Moral of the Story

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.”

Anonymous Coward says:

mattel is so afraid of mga that they had to file such a pissy lawsuit just so they could have complete control. i thought that was called a monopoly. I wouldn’t buy a barbie doll for my daughter even if she begged for them and thank god she doesn’t like them. she loves her bratz dolls and doesn’t plan on giving them up. i hope mattel goes bankrupt and they all burn in hell

ks (profile) says:

what is really happening

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: what is really happening

All of this is true. Everything about your comment is absolutely true.

It’s a shame that Mattel had to stoop this low to gain more money in the doll industry. If you want more buyers, change your outlook a little! I know a lot of parents of Bratz fans now no longer buy ANY of Mattel’s toys due to this case. AND in the middle of a recession??!? Way to go Chuck Scothton.

Karen (profile) says:

Barbie/Bratz

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.

Angeline says:

this is compeltly stupid

I dont know how many of you have read that “toy monster the big bad world of mattel” but it pretty much says what i have known since this whole thing started

mattel right now acording to that book is at the bottom of the barrel they dont have money they dont have sales they dont have products …its just going down hill

mattel sued mga since its the last thing they could come up with to save there candy asses

the thing i feel with barbie is the reason bratz are better then her is the fact that ….

well i could list everything she does but that could take a month..

barbie = mother , princess, doctors,dancers,sports,

bratz on the other hand are more realistic….

also i dont see why mga lost the sue again mateel for there rip offs

my scene

you look bratz came 2002 and 2003 i believe was when my scene came

and thats a more rip off and theres been stuff online that shows mattel dident even have that doll in mind

if you agree with me your a human being

Marie says:

Mattel vs MGA

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.

Tom says:

MGA

Carter worked on Bratz while at Mattel and used Mattel resources – whether it was a fax machine, paper, time, etc. Mattel knew about his Bratz idea and turned him down as it was not the direction they were interested in. He then took it to MGA. Isaac knew that that it was shown at Mattel and the Carter was working at Mattel. This is part of the problem. Isaac knew that a contract was being violated and went along with it. He should have told Carter that it was a potential problem for him and MGA. But Isaac is greedy and figured he could hide it.

Not for a moment should anyone believe that MGA is the underdog. Yes, they are smaller but Isaac has a reputation of being litigious and a knock-off manufacturer. He has shipped products to retailers that were different than what they ordered and then blamed it on the factory. He has invented research showing his products are better than competitors – he literally made them up.

Isaac is a liar and a thief. Take a look at his history of lawsuits. He has little concern for other people and their interests. Make no mistake – he is very smart, but he is a bad bad guy.

AZO says:

Re: MGA

But what is this contract Carter had with Mattel? Designers are hired on an “At Will” basis at Mattel, there is no “contract”. It cannot be taken for granted Carter signed any document that put Isaac in the position of knowingly using Mattel property….or indeed that Carter agreed to conditions that his every thought was Mattel property.You know Mattel’s new hire personnel are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

I would like to know if the judge has actually seen all of Carter’s new hire documents? in fact, everyone is talking like they know what they look like, perhaps it’s time they were in the public domain?

Anonymous Coward says:

below comment about sums it up…….and gives a picture of Isaac Larian’s character.

The verdicts also were “tainted” by a juror who said during deliberations that her attorney husband had told her Iranians clients were “stubborn, rude … and have stolen other person’s (sic) ideas,” the petition said.

Lauren says:

Re: Re:

The jury are just imperfect people and don’t always decide whats best either. So it is a dispute as to whether the jury was right in their accusations, know-it-all. Also, Cartewr Bryant DID present some designs to Mattel, but they said it was too inappropriate for the company, and so he created NEW designs and joined MGA, though Mattel claimed it looked to similar to hie “original” designs. His drawings don’t look anything like the Bratz. They look like the Diva Starz….Also, they ruled that MGA has to remove all Bratz-related products, which is shady in the first place, regardless of any other product. What else does MGA make that is over a billion dollars?

And if anyone didn’t notice this article is being sarcastic and talking about companies in general that relate to the situation. Geez, people have to be such know-it-all Coughs*Judge* give it a rest.

racist..Americans hate Iranians and think they’re all terrorists…..

jackie stickler says:

Bratz vs Barbie

Mattel is just doing this because finally someone challenged their bottom line. Sad that Mattel can’t deal with a little competition. What about the 11 in dolls that look like barbies but aren’t made by mattel. What about the fact that Mattel makes puts out princes dolls that look like the disney princes dolls that arent made by Mattel. They need to give it up. Mothers will no longer buy a Mattel doll for little girls if they keep it up. I know my best friends have stopped buying Barbie because of Mattels greed. We all try to teach our children to share and to play nice. Mattel isn’t playing nice they don’t know anything other than greed. Maybe its time someone puts Mattel in their place. I think everyone should boycot Mattel on all products until they learn a very large lesson that we all were taught as children. Oh and by the way mattel makes toys that look like toys other companies have come out with so maybe they need to get together and start sueing MAttel.

lauren (user link) says:

barbies are copying bratz!!!

mattels creation my scene now i can think of various bad and annoying things that they are
1. if you look close enough you CAN SEE THAT THEY HAVE SMALL LIPS THAT LOOK VERY ALIKE TO BRATZ.
2.DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHY THEY MADE MYSCENE SO THEY COULD TRY TO COPY BRATZ WITHOUT BLOWING IT BUT I KNOW THAT THEY COPYED.

S Milner Martin says:

Mattel and MGA

Mattel does have a nerve suing MGA, the competitor. And, both companies need to repay the financial patronage of their products by the HARDWORKING American people by returning the manufacture of their dolls and accessories to the American shore and homeland. MATTEL HAS BEEN OUTSOURCING JOBS FOR FINANCIAL GAIN FOR YEARS! LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED IN CHINA RECENTLY WITH THE LEAD PAINT! CAUSE AND AFFECT.

Zero says:

The Ninth Circuit

The Court of Appeals has now rejected MGA’s request for a stay of the transfer of Bratz, basically saying that MGA’s appeal lacks merit. This undoubtedly will fuel the knee jerk reactions by many here who assume any IP claim is always bad and any impairment of IP always fosters innovation. The facts here were simple. The designer created Bratz while a Mattel employee, used Mattel employees and resources to do so and sold it to MGA while still an employee. Then, MGA and the designer spent years lying about where it came from. That is not what Woz or the others mentioned in the post did. Not even close. For those whose brains seize up whenever IP is involved, how about taking the blinders off and looking at fairness for a second.

Amy (user link) says:

Hmm… when you work for big corporations, doesn’t your work contract specify that anything you come up with while working there is the intellectual property of that company? For a lot of companies it doesn’t have to be something done while at work or using company property. Rather, they focus on whether it is related to whatever the company is doing. I’m trying to remember the exact online news source (could be Wall Street Journal) but didn’t they also have somewhat similar rules, saying you can’t have a personal blog and that the way your use twitter was up to your editor?

I am not saying that it is fair for such rules to be in place but from what I gathered, this was pretty standard procedure. And yes, these are annoying rules.

Susanna says:

Re: Re:

What about my negative thoughts and bad ideas? Are they also employees property? I’m sure Mattel would have rejected bratz-idea in the beginning: it’s so completely different from Airy-Fairy-Pink-Barbie-World. The designer just used common sense in getting his ideas elsewhere.

There must be a limit to ‘my life’ and ‘work life’.

Anonymous Coward says:

Barbie was basically a rip off of the Germany Lilly doll right down to the extra pale skin and the look of the eyes. They have been living off that plunder ever since.

They are a sue happy company that couldn’t innovate their way out of an open box. They higher consultants to do all of their thinking for them. The corporate management environment is a bizarre vacuum occupied primarily by short sighted career hopper without any vision except career advancement.

Reader says:

Interesting Article

This Goliath had been genuinely wronged; Mattel couldn’t let jurors think that it was beating up an honest competitor. WINNING
BY JEFF JEFFREY
1097 words
22 June 2009
The National Law Journal
NLJ
S11
Volume 31; Issue 42
English
Copyright 2009 ALM Properties, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

William Price knew that jurors wouldn’t take kindly to a lawsuit filed by Mattel Inc. against a competitor if it appeared to be a case of Goliath bullying David out of the marketplace. Mattel makes Barbie, for crying out loud, the world’s most famous doll.

That’s why Price, 52, a Los Angeles partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, devised a legal strategy for Mattel that cast the toy manufacturing giant as simply one Goliath trying to collect what had been stolen by another Goliath.

The other company, MGA Entertainment Inc., sold Barbie’s more risque rival, the Bratz dolls. Mattel believed that the Bratz dolls were based on a design originally developed by a Mattel employee who illegally turned it over to MGA when he joined that company. During the course of a seven-week trial last year, Price was able to prove that doll designer Carter Bryant had created the original drawings and sculpts of what became the Bratz when he worked for Mattel.

Those dolls, introduced by MGA in 2001, went on to become the company’s most profitable product, bringing in more than $1 billion a year. In July 2008, a federal jury in the Central District of California awarded Mattel $100 million in damages. In December 2008, U.S. District Judge Stephen Larson ordered MGA to turn over all Bratz dolls, their associated products and the Bratz name to Mattel and permanently barred MGA from making, producing or licensing the dolls in the future. “Look, competition is fine,” Price said. “But Mattel’s whole point was that if you’re going to compete with us, do it with your ideas, not ours.”

KICKING AN UNDERDOG?

Clearly, Bryant, who had already reached a confidential settlement with Mattel before the trial, would be the single most important witness. Price feared the jury would see Bryant as an underdog being kicked around by a multibillion-dollar company. He wanted to keep the focus on MGA, which was represented by a team led by Thomas Nolan and Raoul Kennedy of New York’s Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. “What we wanted to do was show what kind of company Mattel was versus what kind of company MGA was,” Price said.

Instead of starting the trial with Bryant, Price decided to work through the other witnesses first. The Quinn Emanuel team led off with two doll designers from Mattel, who were questioned by Price’s co-counsel, John Quinn, about the day-to-day work of developing a new toy. “We were trying to get the jury to see that Mattel is a company that prides itself on creativity and what it takes to make an inventive product,” Price said.

From there, Price took over, saving for himself the most hostile witnesses. He took the lead on questioning Paula Garcia, the MGA employee who lured Bryant away from Mattel. She testified that she didn’t know that he worked at Mattel. “We were quickly able to disprove [that] through the testimonies of other employees whom she had told otherwise,” Price said.

Price also called MGA Chief Executive Officer Isaac Larison. He got Larison to admit that Larison had hidden Bryant’s role in the development of the Bratz line for years to avoid tipping off Mattel. “We showed the jury that he had behaved dishonestly,” Price said. According to Quinn, Price “eviscerated” MGA’s key witnesses. “There were ‘Perry Mason’ moments during each cross,” Quinn said.

In addition to painting MGA as less than honest, Price used physical evidence to show that Bryant had cheated Mattel. Price introduced an employment agreement mailed by Larison and signed by Bryant. “We knew Bryant was working at Mattel at the time because it was faxed from the Mattel offices. It had the Mattel fax header on it,” Price said.

The truly critical timing issue involved when the first Bratz-like dolls and sculpts were created. A forensic expert demonstrated that the original drawings came from a notebook that Bryant used while still an employee at Mattel. The pages with the drawings had been torn out of the notebook. But the expert pointed to the impressions left by the drawings on subsequent pages of the notebook, and to bank account calculations on other pages that also traced to Bryant’s period of employment with Mattel.

By the time Price called Bryant to the stand, he hardly stood a chance with the jury. Price called Bryant as a hostile witness to explain a letter he mailed to a doll-hair manufacturer in which he identified himself as an MGA employee while still working at Mattel. “Bryant testified he did not intend to imply in the letter that he worked for MGA. I then pointed out that his letter had a return address of ‘Carter Bryant, c/o MGA, etc.’ He then said that now he couldn’t remember what he intended,” Price said. “That’s the kind of stuff which impressed the jury—his general dishonesty.”

MGA is seeking to appeal the case. Larson gave the company a one-year transition period to turn over the Bratz line to Mattel.

Despite the loss, Skadden’s Nolan said that he was pleased by the way the jury structured its award for Mattel. The jury awarded Mattel only $10 million for copyright infringement, Nolan said, a fraction of the $1.7 billion the company had asked for. The other $90 million was for contract violations.

“We were also pleased that they found that neither MGA or Larison had willfully engaged in copyright infringement,” Nolan said.

Price is off to a good start this year, as well. In January, he scored a win for Micron Technology Inc. in a lawsuit that blocked Rambus Inc., a technology licensing company, from enforcing 12 patents against his client. The judge cited Rambus’ document-destruction policy. Rambus argued that the policy—which called for regularly scheduled “shred days”—was not designed to destroy troublesome documents in anticipation of litigation. Judge Sue Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware didn’t buy it. Robinson held that “the very integrity of the litigation has been impugned.”

If the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upholds the ruling on appeal, Price said, Rambus could stand to lose out on billions of dollars in licensing royalties.

Contact Jeff Jeffrey at jeff.jeffrey@incisivemedia.com.

kayla (user link) says:

bratz

bratz should not be sude it did not do anything i love bratz barbiae dolls are old bratz comes out with better things and you know that barbie doll is not even cool its stupied bratz are more creative barbie dolls it just the same thing oover again if bratz go down and the stores that have them there not gonna have them so the person that love it is not gonna buy any thing else because it was the number one hit i thiink that barbie sucks there the one whos hating bratz new barbie old lets just throw barbie away and have a life with bratz barbie complans and complans JUST LEAVE BRATZ ALONE MATTEL IS THE WORST STUPIED NOT NEW OLD TAKY THING I EVER HEARRD AND SAW I WISH MATTEL SHOULD BE THE ONE WHOS GETTIN EVERYTHING LOST I TELLIN U IF BRATZ IS GONE IM GONNA HURT MATTEL BAD AND I MEAN IT BARBIE IS A BAD NAME TO I THINK SOME KINDA EVIL NAME ALL IM JUST SAYIN DONT LET BRATZ AND DONT EVEN SAY ITS TO LATE CAUSE I KNOW THATS IT NOT LATE I KNOW THAT AMD U KNOW THAT I WILL NOT LET THIS HAPPEN WELL IM not MAKING A THREAT IT JUST I DONT BRATZ TO GO AWAY I REALLY THINK THAT people should think huh i guess that bratz and mattel dont have to battel eachother well i just got mad im crying pleese dont let bratz gooo I LOVE IT REALLY I DO I DONT WANT IT TO GO AWAY

kodo says:

mattel

mattel has the nevre to get me mad well it did

and im not happy

im sad as hell cant belive mattle did this sued bratz like come those people destroyed my thing to do when im bored or when to keep me to being happy i hate mattel

bratz should kick barbie ass and if they could and they did i would say barbie deserve that because barbie should thought of another way to get money like make more creative things well im sure that they cant do that and if they acnt and take down bratz they still is not gonna get no money cuz they an’t creative at ALL

and at fisrt mga kick mattels but they deserve it

Ashley says:

GIVE MGA BRATZ BACK

From what i heard mga made a mistake i, i love the bratz dolls, movies, tv seris and videogames, and what i think is that mattel should have all bratz drawings that have been made and been made into dolls/movies/games. But what i dont agree with is giving mattel, mga’s future plans for bratz produts, thats not right. And its not as if Mattel’s going to do anything with the bratz is he? He’s to busy with Barbie. So i think that mga should have the right to continue making bratz products. I know that mattel owns bratz but maybe they could set out to some agreement because mga made bratz, no one else could make bratz better, they could try but they’d fail, mga deserve to have some owner ship of the bratz, even with some people/criticks saying ‘girls dont like bratz, bratz is out, bratz are crap’ mga still contiued onwords still producing some amazing bratz dolls/tv seris’/movies/video games. Mattel should give mga some rights for bratz, come on mga we know you can do it. Fight the power, THE BRATZ POWER! 🙂

didrick says:

bratz

i dont think that mattel should do thet because its good for the people who buy the products. mattel is still losing customers eather way becuase… say there are 80,000 girls who buy bratz and only bratz.they wont buy barbies and they will go to another doll company other than barbie what are they going to do! file a report with that doll company saying the creator worked with them at the time he/she made those designs. i think that barbie should go out of business,why becuase bratz arent over 50 years old and look like they are 20. bratz are the fresh faced dolls of the century. Bratz can be kids, babies,and teens,boys,or girls. mgae is a really great franchise.
the bottom line is…
my opinion is bratz are better than barbie any day!!!!

Anonymous Coward says:

bartz

how can they do this my little girl likes and loves the bratz and i have too as well. i perfere them better then barbie , when i was little ,a kid i had a barbie and i did not like it coz thats all i ever known . barbie dosent like compition or should i say mattel dosent like compition.hey why dosent everyone stop buying anything thats osciated with mattel including toy and other things. my sister is pissed of about the whole thing she has decided not to buy any thing thats osciated with mattel. by the way dont the have a saying about girls dreams or something . bratz are more real to the eye then barbie anyway.thats why they sell more . barbie is fake and plastic.

Little Helpless Girl says:

I am just a little girl and I am forever traumatized by the trashy sexually-appealling dolls named Bratz. Please take them off the market so I no longer have to face those shocking tramps when I walk into a toy store.
I LUV Barbie because she is a decent hard working lady which has been austronaut and president and so many good examples for little girls like me… not like sluddy Bratz.

Sammy says:

! MGA AND MATTEL WORK TOGETHER AND BRING BRATZ BACK TOGETHER !

ok here is what i think of all this mess. Mattel may in ways have created the bratz, but look not as if mattel is going to do anything with the bratz, he’ll proberly burn the bratz drawing and say BARBIE RULES. the only thing barbie rules at is being old 50 to be aggzact. When is barbie going we’ve all seen enough of here. Bratz has been around for not even been around for 10 years yet but there better than barbie. MGA should be able to continue working with bratz but because it is owned by mattel, mattel should get a cut of the profits made. Mattel could be nice about it and say ok thats fine. or he could be evil nasty ba*ard and be really selfish and say no.
Mattel work an agreement with MGA start thinking about other than just barbie those girls are getting sick of them, but bratz they love and it would make everyone happy, and it would stop all this MGA Vs MATTEL mess, i mean come on your adults for crying out loud. WORK TOGETHER!
-set and agreement statement/letter
-frame it, fire proff it whatever
-be happy about it
-stick to your times and agreements
-dont fall out too much
-surport it other in what you do Barbie & Bratz
-and at the same time show some FREINDLY compertion
-make all the girls in the world happy again

WE KNOW YOU CAN BOTH DO IT -TOGETHER!!!

Raven says:

Re: ! MGA AND MATTEL WORK TOGETHER AND BRING BRATZ BACK TOGETHER !

I think you are right….Mattel was little too harsh and came out of court with more money then they were originally supposed to get. I mean people from other companies have done what Carter Bryant has done. But that two week lease is what hurt him. Thats when the company you work with gives you two weeks to pack up and then they pay you. But on that two week lease he sent ideas to MGAE. Anyway, people in Mattel have done it but just never been sued before. And if they have they probably won because Mattel is a big top dog company and they supposedly can do no evil if they make children s toys. (yeah right). Mattel has done this to companies for years. They did it to the Barbie originators. They did it to any doll that looked like Barbie, but with Bratz that couldn’t find a similarity yet. Yet, their barbie is a bigger copy off of the Skanky Bild Lilli and that is pretty obvious. But in this world rich white people always win. America is not as promising as it puts itself out there to be. And our court system is only fair to money. But at least Mattel could attempt to do the Bratz dolls. They are a big lose to the doll world. Barbie is not going to hold against video games and internet.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: ! MGA AND MATTEL WORK TOGETHER AND BRING BRATZ BACK TOGETHER !

And there’s not many designers and sculptors at Mattel who aren’t working on their own stuff in their own time and its the way its been for years. Stuff they believe to be their own. Design responds to marketing…if marketing haven’t cooked it up, it’s not wanted, it’s invisible…it’s the way it is. And probably the way it was with Carter…until his talent as a designer was recognized and rewarded elsewhere.

And there are times when that two weeks notice is sprung on you months later, I mean on one hand you’re “at will” and on the other you’re still hired and you don’t know it. It’s incredibly disappointing the courts work this kind of entrapment of former employees.

jay says:

pure american greed¡¡¡

its a shame what MATTEL are doing to MGAE¡¡,,how they can claim mgae stole the bratz idea,,when barbie image was just taken out of an ADULT doll named lilly ,,A hooker that would do everything for money ¡¡the same Image Mattel its portraying right now and the image this perturbing doll has been giving the girls of all the world for many years ,,the reason a lot of girls have fall into diets,anorexia,bulimia,into plastic surgery,the reason that most of them wants to dye their hair blonde,the reason a lot of women are not satisfied with what they have ,and they just want more¡¡¡ to my personal judgement I never tought barbie was for little kids,her sexual image was never for kids ,I remember when i saw my little niece playing with Barbie and Ken having sexual relations,I was not shocked but it came clear once again that it was not a toy suited for little kids ,,sex its natural but kids needs to b kids and they need to have more options than just a sexual image of a sexual and material dominatrix,,
its very clear why BRATZ was a major succes when they came out they were fresh,different and original,not the typical sexual girly girl bimbo stereotype,more cartoonish,more actioned packed,their collections more fun and colorful ,more inventive and imaginative,and of course with more accesories and clothes that barbie would ever dreamed off¡ I remember buying muy little girl her first brat,a tokyo a gogo brat(she never had a barbie she was never interested in barbies)the first time she saw them she feel in love with them she tought it was cool that this Girls were different,that they had more names than just barbie,that they were from different ethnical races and from different countries,and that they seem confident and brave to make any of her dreams come true¡ she didnt feel in love just with the dolls,she feel in love with the whole design(of the package,their accesories,all the little details that were by far better than barbie),
Its a shame what mattel are doing to MGAE, since when an employee of some company can´t take his(or hers)original ideas to other company to have a better chance of succes and opportunities(isn´t that what America its made of?)Does MATTEL employees gets hired to loose all their civil rights,to not think while they work there and to be turned into slaves so they just have to commit to their TOy Monster industry for life?¡ once again they shouldn´t blame MGAE ,it was their fault tha Barbie and other brands started to fail in the market,besides changing barbies clothes they never innovate or came with new and fresh ideas ,you can see it with other brands as hot wheels,the same molds with different designs,they tought they could leave of the same old tired formula,and it just got to that point,TIRED¡¡ they tried to compete bratz with flavas which was a horrible mistake,and Myscene which now its a shameful copy of the bratz,,and even worst now normal retail barbies are not even pretty anymore(the plastic and the materials are very low quality),they are just suin MGAE in a desperate action to put them out of the market,but they are doing to realize that even with that they will not gain the sales back unless they start to create their own and new lines,and they gotta realize they cant be a toy monopoly,the sun shines for everybody¡¡as I told you before in my house we never bought a barbie doll and never will¡¡we dont even buy other mattel toys my kids prefer playmates or Hasbro(go figure),Im wondering if they would start to sue those companys in an action of American greed?
shame on Mattel and shame on the American laws that permits this kind of abuse¡¡

jay says:

pure American Greed¡¡

its a shame what MATTEL are doing to MGAE¡¡,,how they can claim mgae stole the bratz idea,,when barbie image was just taken out of an ADULT doll named lilly ,,A hooker that would do everything for money ¡¡the same Image Mattel its portraying right now and the image this perturbing doll has been giving the girls of all the world for many years ,,the reason a lot of girls have fall into diets,anorexia,bulimia,into plastic surgery,the reason that most of them wants to dye their hair blonde,the reason a lot of women are not satisfied with what they have ,and they just want more¡¡¡ to my personal judgement I never tought barbie was for little kids,her sexual image was never for kids ,I remember when i saw my little niece playing with Barbie and Ken having sexual relations,I was not shocked but it came clear once again that it was not a toy suited for little kids ,,sex its natural but kids needs to b kids and they need to have more options than just a sexual image of a sexual and material dominatrix,,
its very clear why BRATZ was a major succes when they came out they were fresh,different and original,not the typical sexual girly girl bimbo stereotype,more cartoonish,more actioned packed,their collections more fun and colorful ,more inventive and imaginative,and of course with more accesories and clothes that barbie would ever dreamed off¡ I remember buying muy little girl her first brat,a tokyo a gogo brat(she never had a barbie she was never interested in barbies)the first time she saw them she feel in love with them she tought it was cool that this Girls were different,that they had more names than just barbie,that they were from different ethnical races and from different countries,and that they seem confident and brave to make any of her dreams come true¡ she didnt feel in love just with the dolls,she feel in love with the whole design(of the package,their accesories,all the little details that were by far better than barbie),
Its a shame what mattel are doing to MGAE, since when an employee of some company can´t take his(or hers)original ideas to other company to have a better chance of succes and opportunities(isn´t that what America its made of?)Does MATTEL employees gets hired to loose all their civil rights,to not think while they work there and to be turned into slaves so they just have to commit to their TOy Monster industry for life?¡ once again they shouldn´t blame MGAE ,it was their fault tha Barbie and other brands started to fail in the market,besides changing barbies clothes they never innovate or came with new and fresh ideas ,you can see it with other brands as hot wheels,the same molds with different designs,they tought they could leave of the same old tired formula,and it just got to that point,TIRED¡¡ they tried to compete bratz with flavas which was a horrible mistake,and Myscene which now its a shameful copy of the bratz,,and even worst now normal retail barbies are not even pretty anymore(the plastic and the materials are very low quality),they are just suing MGAE in a desperate action to put them out of the market,but they are going to realize that even with that they will not gain the sales back unless they start to create their own and new lines,and they gotta realize they cant be a toy monopoly,the sun shines for everybody¡¡as I told you before in my house we never bought a barbie doll and never will¡¡we dont even buy other mattel toys my kids prefer playmates or Hasbro(go figure),Im wondering if they would start to sue those companys in an action of American greed?
shame on Mattel and shame on the American laws that permits this kind of abuse¡¡we want bratz on mgae back¡¡

Lauren says:

bratz dolls i think look honestly like sluts

ok yes i realize alot of girls like them and that yes also when barbie came out she had effect on girls. BUT i am so glad that i have not seen many bratz dolls. i mean look at them, they have HUGE lips with lip liner that is obvious, so much eyeshadow on that they could share with 3 other dolls, they wear shorts skirts, hooker boots, and belly shirts. and ppl think that is ok for there girls to play with. so if they really like them, would it be ok with you since some of you wouldnt dare touch a barbie. if you lil girl came home with a belly shirt up to her “breast”, knee high boots, and a short lil skirt were if she bent over you could see her thong or lil girl panties? with bright red lipstick and a bright eye shadow all the way up to there eyebrows? seriously come on. do you really want that influencing your child? i would rather have barbie anyday, not saying barbie doesnt wear belly shirts, or maybe a short skirt here and there, but not like a 13yrd old hooker doll for children. thank goodness this doll will pass before my daughter could dare ask for one she is only 3. but i would not have that gross Bratz doll in my house. the thing will say that i am disapointed about is the myscene dolls by barbie and how they have them look like bratz dolls now ever since they won the case. barbie will always be the best to me, her jobs are a vet, doctor, teacher, and etc. not standing on a corner

A collector says:

Bratz are the oppisite of barbie. Bratz have done things that are both appealing and POSSIBLE. There are many,many, dolls that not only set examples but also show a sense of female pride, such as: extreme sport kickboxer, dance crewz,they ran a magazine, stopped thieves, and so much more. Not only that but unlike barbie each bratz is different, all barbies are painted the same with the same hair. Bratz are a fresh and entertaining new aproach to dolls. As for Mattell’s case, I don’t think they have a much of an argument. Barbie was not the first doll to be invented, there were many more before it’s time that could have sued barbie. That includes the highly popular beautifull crissy doll. If Barbie had not been invented in a time of comfort and freedom, like the fifties, it is highly likely that it too would have been sued. Bratz and barbie have highly distinct characteristics. If Mattell is allowed to gain control of Bratz then they practically control the doll industry. It is as though Mattell believes that the manufacture of girl’s dolls is completely owned by themselves!!!!

Ahria says:

Bratz Dolls

Mattel learned that the world is a-changing and they weren’t changing enough with it, but they did find a way to usurp the power of their competitor. What this really shows is the power of the supposedly little guy to contribute to a corporation. Without a designer’s idea, nothing would be being fought over. So . . . what do designer’s get out of a design? They are like the movie stars of old owned by movie studios or recording artists forced to sign on with specific record labels. Perhaps they should be freelance designers. Which dolls will be most valuabe, do you think?? The last to be produced? Interesting . . .

Susanna says:

Re: Fat-ass-males are history

Or maybe the Fat-Ass-Mattel-Bosses should be locked up forever, so we could have the kind of dolls we want.

Mattel-fat-ass-upper-class-sugar-asses have tried to put down many creative people, so that everything should be as dead and boring as their life in the money-tower. I wished they had a LIFE because that means IDEAS. At the moment the safety net of sugar-asses have failed and they try their old ways: to beat the living people with their dollars.

mandee says:

I am really sad that the bratz r going to be discontinued from mga. I went shopping the other day and saw the new moxie dolls and they just aren’t as cute as the bratz were, but I know they had to completely change the look because of the lawsuit. I will never buy another barbie again. I grew up playing with barbies and looked forward to doing the same with my daughter one day but once she was old enough to play, barbie wasn’t cute, pretty, or interesting anymore so we only bought a few but never really played with them too much. Barbies used to be so pretty and fun but now they changed to something else in an attempt to reinvent her and its just boring. At first I said NO to bratz b cuz they were too sexual looking, but later I noticed they started to dress them better and the video game came out where you can put on makeup and outfits and even go skating and be a fashion designer which was lots of fun to do with my daughter so we started buying them. They r much better and more creative than barbie. Mattel is being greedy and unreasonable and I think 90 million is good enough and that they should just let them continue making the dolls but maybe get some royalties if its true he was employed there when he created them but only if they’ve proven that he signed a contract agreeing to giving them only his ideas and only if the dolls he came up with there look like the ones hes making 2 day. If they look different then they should only be paid from what he got from the ones he sold that looked like the ones he thought of and drew while he was employed there. N E thing after that was what he created from thoughts he had later. Mattell is going to HAVE TO compromise on this to stay in business, especially concerning barbie, because lots of people are angry and will choose to not buy their version of bratz if they choose to make one, and if they dont make bratz, we’ll be mad at them for being greedy and getting rid of bratz and we wont buy n e thing from them at all, especially barbies because everyone will see her as the enemy. At least with letting MGA keep bratz Mattell could still get $ and keep barbie going by appeasing angry bratz fans if they make a deal where they just get some royalties but MGA still gets to produce bratz

bratz fan (user link) says:

Mattel Fattel are soo cruel what about kids

what about kids they will be so upset that their favourite dolls get horrrible princess-sick gowns like barbies and lose their sexy styles. This is so unfair! I am a collector and now you say Mattel take over Bratz. How dare they? Sue mattel nd say they have NO rights to steal Isaac Larian’s creations just because he used to work at Mattel!!!!!!!
How dare they please save bratz!!!!! plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!

Bratz fan 4ever says:

Re: Re: had enough

wat the freak is up with mattel! they shouldnt have the right to sue bratz just bcuz they almost nocked barbie off her thrown. oh and i knoe moxie girls r from the same companie but i will bever buy them and its also really good i have NEVER bought a mattel prodouct. oh and barbies so selfish!!! they didnt even let bratz live 10 years cmon barbies 50! wat more could she want! oh wait she wants everything cuz shes “oh hi im miss im so perfect and pink” wat yah say about that bratz haterz!!!!

Anonymous Coward says:

I don’t think Mattel should get the bratz designs!
In fact I don’t think Bratz should be shut down at all!
Mattel is just jealous of MGA because kids like Bratz more than Barbies!
Bratz have been around for 8 years and Mattel is just now suing MGA because the creator worked at Mattel first!
So what?? Last I heard you could quit from a job and go get another one some where better!!
MATTEL IS STUPID && BARBIES AREN’T MUCH BETTER!!

Anonymous Coward says:

I don’t think Mattel should get the bratz designs!
In fact I don’t think Bratz should be shut down at all!
Mattel is just jealous of MGA because kids like Bratz more than Barbies!
Bratz have been around for 8 years and Mattel is just now suing MGA because the creator worked at Mattel first!
So what?? Last I heard you could quit from a job and go get another one some where better!!
MATTEL IS STUPID && BARBIES AREN’T MUCH BETTER!!

Anonymous Coward says:

I’m so glad Mattel won. Frankly, it doesn’t matter whether you boycott Barbie dolls or not- Mattel won fair and square. They’re going to keep producing Barbie dolls and they’re going to keep making profit from Barbie dolls because there will always be somebody in the world who is willing to buy them. On a more personal note: I hate Bratz dolls, they’re waaay too over-sexualized. I could really care less whether MGA Entertainment has to or does not have to hand over all that information. Maybe that’s just me though.

Susanna says:

Re: Fat-Ass-Males like Mattel are luckily the past

“Maybe that’s just me though.”

yes. It’s JUST you.

Mattel is an oversized company that has fat-ass-males sitting in an office thinking about money. They thought their life is safe and secure… everything goes on as it always did. Then some littlle company challenges them, takes their financially built secure tower down. Now the fat-asses are thinking: oh, WE should work, we should have ideas or we lose our jobs… but all the creative people want to work in human-size companies without BORING and stupid fat-ass-males trying to patronise them. This is the real life story of small company success vs. dead monolith.

RUNDMC says:

Well, my daughter loves Bratz and was totally devasted when I told her what Mattel has done. She repeated the story to her friends and now there is a whole group of 2nd and third graders at her school who refuses to buy Barbies. We are going to buy Moxie Girls, made by MGA. This whole thing has just made me more aware of company names and I will check to make sure I want buy anything by Mattel. By the way my daughter hasn’t tried to look like the dolls at all, she is smart enough to know their just dolls. She likes them because they do have cooler accessories and they look more appealing than plain old Barbie!!!!

no name says:

i dont think mattel should see bratz future plans as this will ruin many childrens dreams i grew up with barbie and bratz and as soon as i found out about bratz i couldn’t wait for xmas’s and birthdays i remember getting them i wanted to scream bratz have better ideas and barbie’s for the younger kids so i just think that it not fair i mean what about all the other little girls who love bratz there mum’s and dad’s are gonna have to search for them this year because they cant do no new ones until the end of the christmas holidays i reckon they should just pay a fee and be done with it barbie is just plain jelous you cant have the cake and eat it.

Jay says:

Moxie girls!!!!

I leaved a comment about a month ago ,explaining the greedy trial that mgae.was going on because of mattel ,,for now it seems that evil(mattel)won,,but as I said it before I will stick with mgae no matter what ,,we never bought barbies and never will and Im not going to buy bratz dolls unless they are produced by mgae ,,,but in the meantime I shouldnt worry about that ,,las weekend we went to the store and found the new moxy girls,,they are supercute ,original,,and fun!! My girl loves them,,they look the way a kids doll should look ,,so barbie move over ,,the new dolls for kids are in town!!

keri (user link) says:

ideas

What if u make a bratz doll that talks
Or u can sell a big box of all the bratz dolls
A box of bratz games
A box of bratz clothes,assesories,and shoes
A bratz divider like a little thing were u can put the clothes and there is a section were u can have shoes,and assesories.
Bratz hotel or new house.
Bratz bus
Bratz privite jet
Bratz concert
Box of Baby Bratz clothes,shoes,
New bratz Play Station 2 games.
New bratz movies
New bratz as alduts dolls
And i have more

Bria says:

US Court Helping.

It is a shame that the US Court was helping the most fashionable dolls. Moms don’t understand that, if you pick up a top Model Barbie doll, its nothing compared to the Bratz clothing. Their clothing was urband, trendy, and you probbaly won’t see your average teen walking around with it, but you wouldn’t see a 50 year old women, in knee-high tights with sassy ridges, a black mini skirt, a spaghetti top with cherries on it, and heels. Ok thats trashy. Bratz had a ok look. Barbie is all like follow your dreams, and make them come true, Barbie is just setting a good example for girls (and some boys, if you caught my dirft) 5 years to 7 years. The Bratz made their fashion dreams come true, in every episode of the Bratz series, In every singel Bratz movie, hey, what the heck! Even in the games they made their dreams come true. The Bratz showed Friendship, Fashion, and Fun. Barbie shows, Pink, blonde hair, a couple of friendship movies, Ken, Tramp-stamps, and more Blonde and Pink. Ok what girl has her own Sports car, a hundread mansions, horses, and everything in the world, but gets younger everyday. Oneday Barbie is a seventeen year old Princess, with a sister that she never knew about that is a freakin’ flying horse, and she has to get married to a guy that looks like he’s about 30, the next minute, she’s a young highschooler that likes a guy name Todd, and her bestfriend (who is a boy people! Don’t get nasty) likes her. And now she’s a championship surfer that really is a mermaid. WHAT! The Bratz picked their goals, and stuck with them. It’s not like Cloe woke up one-day and said I’m gonna spend 9 years in College and came out with a Masters degree, or whatever, or it’s not Like Sasha said I wanna be a dancer, and ends up a teacher in france or something. Moms may have not thought the Queens of Fashion (The Bratz) were a good example, but my Mom lets me buy them, I’m 12 years old, and I haven’t changed from the day I turned 6. Still a Bratz fan, and forever will be. But hey! WT…. Why is the court letting Barbie keep her blonde butt in the toy bussiness, her sales dropped, and that was the only way of getting rid of the competiton, digging deeper and deeper until, AHA, They caught a rat. Instead of waiting 9 years, to get Bratz out the bussiness, they should of done it from the begging. OR, It was all Mattels plan, they didn’t think Bratz would rise above them, so they did what they could to bring them down, so they found out a past employee actually gave their desgins to Mattel. Or the whole plan, was lets see if they get bigger than us, and then if they do, we will shut them down. And who’s to say that Mattle didn’t promise the judge a lifetime supply of Barbie dolls to take down MGA Entertainment. The whole thing is soo stupid. Bratz are better Barbie sucks, kick her out the market already!

kayla (user link) says:

bratz

mattel have no right to do this. Issac Larian told them about the idea of bratz but they turned him down, and now, because bratz were making more money they sued! how stupid can u get? anyway, i LOVE moxie girlz, and we wouldnt have them if this debate wernt goin on, but still, when i liked bratz, i ate dry dog crunchy food for them, so why stop? bratz havent even been out for 10 years and now theyre stopping? when barbie is 50 years, she should stop since shes had more of a life! p.s: can u send me a moxie doll plz? 🙂 roses to bratz @–‘—

maggie (profile) says:

Re: bratz

yes they do have a right to do that issac stole the idea of bratz because mattel was working on a new doll and he stole it gee is that hard to understand it’s over now mattel is selling bratz dolls at least there not gonedon’t be ungrarteful this is not a place for kids ok.Also barbie was the frist doll in the world so who cares if she old some people really like her and i mean come on there just dolls its not like there human well….i do still play with them its never fun to grow up trust me

Anonymous Coward says:

Would Mattel still have sued MGA if the Bratz concept was not making millions and become a direct competitor to Barbie? The fact is Mattel is implicitly acknowledging that their Barbie doll is slowly but surely phasing out and they desperately need a new product to hang on.
Along that, they also decided to kill off the competition (with the helping hand of the US Court). A real shame …. if this is not greed and lust, then I have no word to describe this.

Susanna says:

Mattel has paid millions to the court

It cannot be real that MGA should give their brain work of 2009 to Mattel.

Anyway as an artist I can really relate to the Bratz designer. They were his OWN creations. They are so different from Barbie doll so that Mattel would have either rejected his ideas in the first place or at least transformed his ideas into some pink horror doll series.

Mattel has no right what so ever to Bratz dolls. That’s my gut feeling. US courts can be bought, I see. This is madness. Could we have a democratic vote on the issue? I think most people would vote for MGA.

In principal, I will not buy any bratz dolls created by mattel, because I don’t want to give my money to the Pink Thieves!

– Adult doll collector from Finland who happens to like Bratz

alex says:

lets boycott mattel¡¡¡¡¡

Im just very angry that just because Mattel felt some competition they just BOUGHT THE USA COURT SYSTEM TO GET RID OF THE BRATZ, personally Ive never bought mattel barbies,,,I DECIDED TO BUY MY FIRST BRATZ BOYZ because they were very cool¡¡ the design was cool,fresh and original,,they had more accesories and clothes that any ken and barbie doll could dream off ¡¡! till this day I have over 100 bratz boyz and girls combined,,plus a couple of vehicles and a house ,,and it makes me angry that im not gonna be able to collect them anymore just because GREEDY A** MATTEL got Envious and OLD¡¡ they were not able to create fresh and new stuff like MGAE´S BRATZ so thats why they decided they could buy THE USA COURT ,I betcha they paid millions to win such a case¡¡ but well as i said before never bought barbies never will ,,if mattel produces bratz dolls I WILL NEVER BUY THEM ,,UNLESS MGA DOES IT ,,AND NOW IM DOING A PERSONAL BOYCOTT NOY BUYING ANYOTHER TOY OR BRAND BY MATTEL,,SO PEOPLE IF YOUR FED UP AND TIRED OF THE OLD MONOPOLY CALLED MATTEL START A BOYCOTT AGAINST THEM TOO,LETS SHOW THEM CONSUMERS ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN THEIR “GREEDY” MONEY ¡¡¡¡

Norwegian Girl says:

OMG.

OMG. This is my nightmare. its really unfeard cuz all my friends and realatives REALLY like bratz, and i hate that they are doing this to you. I thinks its absoloutly redicilous like Anonymus Coward said. Why can mattel quit, cuz they made BIG copies of bratz when they were working on Myscene?

I hope that MGA will survive this battle, I really cant live with out bratz

Hank says:

The real funny part is....

The entire big eyed doll concept was completely stolen from a girl that owned a skateboard company… she drew all the graphics and even TM’d the name Bratz before this huckester came in and robbed her idea and tried to turn it into a doll.

True story, so I have no compassion for the scumbags at MGA over getting their butts kicked by Barbie…

Hayley says:

Mattel and MGA Entertainment.

I think it is stupid. I hate Mattel, they are just constantly jealous because MGA makes all the money. It’s a true statement! I mean look at Mattel. There always saying some bullshit like Bratz is a bad example for girls. UH! Barbie.. hello? She wears pink all the fucking time what else do you see her body wearing? GOD.

Olin Chandler says:

Mattel vs Mga

This is maddning I know the toy American toy industry in and out and this makes no sense I know for a fact from historic refrences that when Ruth invented Barbie she got the idea from a Europen fashion doll and she came back to the states all she did was take an idea and make it better thats what Mga has done mattel with its billions in sales each year has been loosing ground for years and now that this man has invented this great line of dolls they are acting like Barbie was a total original concept it was not read the books on mattel and you will see she did see her daughter playing with one deminisional paper dolls but she also took the idea from a europen doll and reinvented here maga is simpily gaining market share and mattel is trying to crush them and this is coming from some one who has admired mattel and loves the companany but when some one elese builds a product that can compeate with a bigger company this is they run out of options and this is what they do mattel I love you and adore barbie but you cant stop progress what bratzs can’t do another doll will this is just wrong mattel instead of trying to steal mga’s product you need to do what no other toy company in the world can do and that is compeat.

Jordi says:

Dont retire bratz dolls please!!!

Im a big fan of the bratz and Im very sad they are not going to exist anymore,,in never bought a barbie doll ,,never liked them,,for me it was a lot of fun when in went out in my bratz search looking for old and new collections,it was fun when I deboxed them and played for hours with them,,as Im saying it never liked barbies,,and the new moxie girlz are cute but they are not my taste,,bratz are magical ,fun,they have something I cant explain,,but I enjoy them a lot!!! Please mga find a way to keep producing them please!!!! I dont know what Im going to do without them,,I will miss them a lot!! Why mattel cant understand theres taste for different dolls besides barbie,why they dont give us the opportunity to keep buying bratz dolls?,why not letting us keep having fun? I am terribly sad!!

Ella says:

Re: Dont retire bratz dolls please!!!

I don’t like this at all i hate seriously its so STUPID !!!!!!!!!!
Every Xmas i always always whent shopping for bratz all the time this christmas i only got one with made me cry and i only saw one baby bratz doll in toyworld just one all alone on the shelf with all this STUPID barbie dolls crouding it and taking over its place I HATE IT BARBIE MAKERS I HATE IT!!!!!!!!
Give the Bratz back there place don’t let them go please don’t let them go pleeease.

Tonni says:

Dolls of the American Worker

Here we sit with American workers, families even, sitting in tent cities, and you all, very smart people really, have so over thought the problem that you have forgotten what we all came here to do. Discuss the creation of a toy a child could enjoy,perhaps even love,and create the toy using with any hope American labor and American stockholders using American people as customers. If we can’t figure this out , how to work together than we are only making every country other than our own very profitable and at the cost of destroying the earth and our childrens health as other countries do not have to abide by health codes or enviormental codes so they don’t. Nor do they pay their people enough to live so we get cheap crap that destroys the plant while it is being made by people being under paid, who have no rights. Our children end up with lead and choaking hazards and recalls and you all can’t just say enough is enough, Buy your kids American toys, and here is the list, and while your at it, help come up with some knew ideas?Are you all really that shallow? The toys that have endured are the toys that the babyboomers played with, slinky, puzzzels, board games and yes…Barbie. The Bratz group is in every garage sale and still some how every little girl, grows up and passes the best of their Barbies down to their children. Legacy toys is what people should be looking for this Christmas and it just may be what we leave behind in changing our shopping habits and telling others to do the same, a national legacy even if her name is Barbie. Tonni/ Oklahoma

Deedee says:

Re: Dolls of the American Worker

Your precious American doll, Barbie, is also not made in the U.S., so your argument about “buy American” is moot. Toys have been made in Asia for decades, many more than people like to think or admit.

I’ve seen Barbies at garage sales, as well as Bratz, so I think your trumpeting Barbie as a legacy brand is laughable. Mattel has built this so-called legacy by seeking and destroying brands that threaten the sales of their own. The Bratz were the first doll line in years to make a significant dent in Barbie sales, and when the traditional avenue of copycatting failed, Mattel began to play dirty. They got a gigantic break when it was discovered that Carter Bryant had come up with the Bratz concept in between stints at Mattel, and they were able to manipulate the justice system to get their way in all the legal dealings.

And who says that Bratz can’t be a “legacy” brand like you claim Barbie is? Supposedly being the dominant fashion doll brand does not entitle Barbie to legacy status any more than any other brand on store shelves. This Christmas, I will be buying a legacy brand for my girls, alongside MGA’s new dolls… her name? Strawberry Shortcake. My girls will get the dolls they want, and Mattel gets none of my money. And that makes me happy.

PinkPout says:

I couldn't agree more

I was just thinking about this again tonight and so glad to have found this article cause it sums up my feelings.. I really miss seeing the Bratz in stores, there just aren’t many of them anymore. What kind of a Judge is this Stephen Larson anyway? I have thought that perhaps he’s being bribed/payed under the table by Mattel, cause who would really make such a harsh ruling as that for no real reason? What a jerk. and Mattel is a greedy company.. Of course they want to remain having a monopoly so they can continue to sell half-assed products, like barbie dolls painted on clothes, no hair brush, or SHOES in the box, and unevenly chopped hair.. yeah, that’s the kind of quality we can expect from Mattel from here on out.

ronald mcthondold (user link) says:

hi

i think bratz are awesome even though im 14 but bratz appeal to teens and little girls!all barbie is known for is stupid fairyes and ugh barbie is getting old now and not much little girls are into barbies anymore.I WANT BRATZ BACK.BRATZ R BETTER AND MATTEL SHOULD KEEP MAKING BRATZ CUZ GIRLS AROUND THE WORLD ARE SO UPSET OVER BRATZ GOING FOREVER.PLEASE MATTEL KEEP THE GIRLS HAPPY AND BRING BACK THE BRATZ.ITS NOT GONNA HURT ANYBODY!

Ella says:

hi

Hi Bratz are awesome i love then so so so so much i am there biggest fan eva and at the age of 10 i think they deserve a little care kids love Bratz and Barbies can’t take that away from them. When i fist found out that the Bratz were in court my friends were crying and crying they didn’t want them to go because bratz made them Happy. PLEASE DON’T TAKE THE BRATZ AWAY WE ALL LOVE THEM AND THATS JUST HOW IT IS OK!!!!!!
Some kids now are getting to old for all this barbie stuff seriously DON’T TAKE THE BRATZ AWAY because they realy are the girls with the only pashion for fashion and bratz are just like me i like the mini skirts and short t shirts and I’m just as a careing friend as they are.
Please don’t do this barbie please i’ll cry all my life if they lose and bratz sell out infact I’m crying right now!!!!

I'M SO ANGREY I WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET THE BRATZ says:

GIVE THE BRATZ BACK!!

“bring me my buffet, and my robe, oh and don’t forget my tiara”. Say’s Barbie.
STUPID DUM UNSENSERBUL BARBIE THINKS SHE’S A LITTLE PRINCESS WHO GETS EVEYTHING SHE EVER WANTS!!!!! I HATE YOU MATTEL BARBIE MAKERS YOU SUCK!!!. Hey Mattel i can here your little princess calling out bring me my tea and crown. Your princess awates .

I hate barbie and i will never by them barbie your going down down down!!!!!!

maddy says:

why did they do this

Why did the barbies take over when do bratz get fansy dream houses like the barbies when do bratz ever turn into fairy’s and turn magical like the barbies

p.s IT IS NOT FAIR

just to tell you mattle people, bratz are have more fashion. so like my argument or not this my o not your’s so get some sense and kill barbie there is plenty of room 4 2 even 3 to include. Bratz did not copy, they look nothing alike.

Rikki says:

LEAVE THE BRATZ ALONE AND SUCK YOUR THUMB AND WALK AWAY MATTEL PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!

I am sick and tired of Barbie i never wanted one, never had one, and never WILL!
Bratz are my thing there my pashion and you CAN’T take that away its F STUPID.

Just to let you no you F mattel people who can’t get anough of there little princess no one in this whole world that i know like’s barbie they F hate it and like my agument or not i HATE YOU TO. This is my family and friends o and you should think about this have you noticed what you’v ben doing it’s just a doll your bloody fighting over so the leave the Bratz alone and GET A LIFE. infact the Bratz had a good one until now you’v ruend little kids life’s and ecpecerly brocken there hearts even mine Hmf Hmf.
Just to tell you one more thing my hole family has ruend there barbies and burnt them in our fire out the back hahahahaha you wasted your time on them barbies.

Keisha says:

Re: LEAVE THE BRATZ ALONE AND SUCK YOUR THUMB AND WALK AWAY MATTEL PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!

i think your egzacly right (forgive my spelling) Mattle has ruend little kids life’s heart and especerly there sence of fashion.

I love Bratz and barbie please stop doing this i am never bying s barbie again i love moxie but there just not like the bratz or well moxie is still better than barbie oh and Mattle you can’t take that away as well if you do you must be jealous cuz moxie is better than DUMB!! barbie and same with bratz!!!!

Its so sad i’m never bying babie again!!! Hmf Hmf i’m crying really crying

John says:

What a horrible decision!

This judge is a total idiot who is setting a dangerous precedent. How will anyone ever want to introduce innovations again? Why would anyone want to inject this kind of fear into the marketplace?

I understand that some companies who’s entire purpose is developing intellectual property would ask employees to sign agreements that anything they think of or produce while working for that company belong to the company, but if someone leaves & then does something of their own, they’re still entitled to so their own thing, even though it’s entirely likely the person came up with their idea whole employed at the company who made them sign the agreement. However, if nothing is written or produced while at the company, it’s almost impossible to prove that the intellectual property belonged to the company rather than the individual.

Either way, Mattel is not a company that thrives on intellectual property. They’re a toy company that relies on the creativity of individuals to move their brand forward. Thos individuals should definitely have the right to come up with their own original concepts & then to leave the company to pursue their own concept. I suppose there is some crossover here: dolls are dolls, & this guy created a successful competitor. But isn’t competition the heart of our system?

It really kills me that the legal system has gone from fostering free-market competition to awarding conglomerates full monopolies based on no legal principle. It wasn’t even 30 yrs ago that the Reagan Justice Dept went after Ma Bell & broke that company into 5 separate companies in the name of competition, saying that it was ridiculous that a single company should control bothe local & long distance service for almost the entire population of the US. The breakup not only fostered competition between the original companies, it created a market where companies like Verizon et al could exist.

Duane says:

It's not over yet, but...

…the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stayed the Bratz recall until it makes its final ruling, and has ordered MGA and Mattel to settle this dispute out of court. What that means is that MGA’s Bratz will remain on the shelves at least past the January 21, 2010 deadline that would have sent what Bratz product is currently on store shelves to its doom.

Finally, judges with reason are looking at this case! Overlooking the mistrial that should have occurred when the one juror made racist comments pertaining to MGA’s Iranian-born CEO, I can understand the ruling that awarded Mattel the initial $100 million, but for Larson, who accepted the jury’s verdict, to just decide to hand over the ENTIRE Bratz franchise, including the numerous characters and concepts that Mattel had absolutely no hand in creating, to Mattel was mind-boggling, and the way that it was to be done seemed like he was especially trying to stick it to MGA.

As much as this could be seen as a victory for MGA, I wonder if the damage hasn’t already been done. I’ve seen Bratz sales dwindle to nearly zero at my neighborhood stores. Even if MGA eventually is allowed to make and sell Bratz legally again, will the pallor of the legal shenanigans by Mattel and their lackey Larson (yes, I am saying that he was in their pocket; why else would he have ruled the way he did?) continue to hang over the Bratz and impede their sales? Let’s hope not.

Adrianna jones (profile) says:

bratz

look im 13 years old and i love bratz. you dont know how much it hurt me when i found out bratz were gone. look i know barbie is…………barbie but bratz they made me see what i wanted to be in life. i like barbie in away but cant dolls and companys get along. it’s dollist. cause like other people like me love bratz. barbie people come on now. you may not have like bratz, but you had to sue? i mean what was that! that is weak, low thats like telling your mother. moomy moomy they copied me. but to me barbie copied bratz. have you seen the myscene dolls. bratz had big head, so did my scene bratz had big feet so did myscene and and bratz came out way befor myscene. bratz were young barbie is way old. then they had a pregnat barbie doll! do they want the little kids to be like “mommy i want to have a baby too, how do you make a baby?” now do you see bratz getting knocked up? i think not. they may have crushes and all but they aint bout to get pregnat.
bratz are one of a kind. they ARE the girls with the passion 4 fashion! they have big head 4 a reson people. there smart as helk. and there fashion is off the hook. i have the bratz in me. im sasha cause i cant live with out my hip-hop, yasmin cause i love to write different storys jade cause when i draw people there fashion is da best cloe cause im an angel and i freek out alot :D.
i really dont care if barbie stays but just bring bratz back for all the girl that loved them. cause if even if you dont cause of my letter thing, BRATZ WILL be COME BACK. bye Adrianna jones

Monique says:

Sad xmas

This year all my lil girls wanted was bratz from babies to teens or wat ever an it sad said to see that this was the year they could not get wat the ask 4. So Barbie got mad cause they was losin money well heres a not come up wit better ideals an make more of her friends. When I was lil i had barbie an all of her friends now only barbie gets the job an all the other stuff wat the hell happend 2 all her sisters an friends. With bratz u got 4 main girls an some other girls as well. So now theres these new dolls out is Barbie gonna cry when they lose money to them as well an shut them down

Anonymous Coward says:

Mattel’s Sugar Dad doll told their story. It’s their self-portrait. People criticize Mattel a bit and they draw the Sugar Dad away from sale. Mattel is so weak as a company. No back bone so to say.

Mattel didn’t develop Bratz ideas, the fashions and the furniture designs. Mattel shouldn’t have anything to do with Bratz. If they failed to make a complaint and a legal suit during the first year of Bratz, Then: TOO BAD. Now 10 years later they are just stealing from MGA.

Alphonse Respond says:

Mattel’s Sugar Dad doll told their story. It’s their self-portrait. People criticize Mattel a bit and they draw the Sugar Dad away from sale. Mattel is so weak as a company. No back bone so to say.

Mattel didn’t develop Bratz ideas, the fashions and the furniture designs. Mattel shouldn’t have anything to do with Bratz. If they failed to make a complaint and a legal suit during the first year of Bratz, Then: TOO BAD. Now 10 years later they are just stealing from MGA.

Deedub says:

The Bratz didn’t even register on Mattel’s radar until their sales skyrocketed. I’m positive that had the Bratz not been as wildly successful as they were, Mattel wouldn’t have given a rat’s behind about whether or not they actually owned the Bratz.

No matter what Mattel’s media machine tries to tell everyone, this has never been about MGA stealing from Mattel. Mattel knows that it’s always been about trying to kill off the competition so that Barbie will be the only name people think of when it comes to fashion dolls.

Pretty Little Princess says:

GIMMEBRATZBAK!!

Good Things About Barbie:
1. They have been around forever.
2. Lots of little kids around the world love them.
3. They teach you to be happy and reach for the stars.

Good Things About Bratz:
1. They are fashionable.
2. Kids of all ages, even teens, love them.
3. They ALSO teach you to be happy and reach for the stars.
4. BUT!!! They ALSO are COOL and HIP and MODERN!!!

Ha!

Personally I think both Barbies and Bratz are good brands of dolls. But Mattel is taking this too far. :^(

/////// (user link) says:

159357

Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the BratzBring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz
Bring back the Bratz

jo says:

Re:

you missed another question… if i’m employed by you to come up with recipes in your kitchen does the recipe belong to you? pretty much yes….but if i come to you with a recipe thought of in your kitchen and you reject that recipe does it still belong to you….no because technically you threw it away..but wait…if you have enough money to bring people to their knees when you realise YOU were wrong is that ok?

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Coward Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Newspapers Gather In Secret (With An Antitrust Lawyer) To Collude Over Paywalls
U2 Manager: Free Is The Enemy Of Good; And It's Moral To Protect Old Business Models
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...