Bratz vs Barbie

[zedex]

Do you agree with the court's ruling? Why or why not?

[Mr. Knowitall]

Do I even care about the court's ruling?

[zedex]

From what I gathered of the decision, they are saying that the guy who came up with "Bratz" was an employee of the compnay that makes Barbie, and as an employee, his brain and thoughts belong to his employer. Correct me if I understood that wrong.

But, if that is the case, how do they conclude such? Wouldn't thought belong to the thinker and not the thinker's employer?

Its not so much the ruling as it is the thought process behind the decision-- provided I read and understood it right.

[jk]

work product. He actually designed them while employed at Mattell.

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- A 10-person federal jury decided on Thursday that the majority of MGA's Bratz dolls' design drawings, prototypes and sculpts were created by designer Carter Bryant while he was employed by Mattel

Simple enough. the guy was hired to design products for Mattell. He took one of the things he designed while at Mattell and sold it to another company.

the jury also found that:

The jury also determined that MGA and its Chief Executive Isaac Larian intentionally interfered with the contractual duties owed by Bryant to Mattel and converted Mattel property for their own use

why do you see this as a problem?

Many companies require employees to sign notices that all products designed while employed at such and such company become the property of the employer. Quite normal. I would suspect this guy had as well.

[zedex]

The guy worked for one company as a toy designer, I understand that.And he sold the idea to another.

But, what if the Bratz idea came up while not on duty? Does that still make the thought process belong to the company he worked for?

I guess what I am asking, in its simplest form, is: because you work for someone, do your thoughts and ideas belong to your employer, even if you are not "on the clock"? It seems to me that the court's decision says its so. Or am I misreading it?

[jk]

But, what if the Bratz idea came up while not on duty? Does that still make the thought process belong to the company he worked for?

he was still employed by Mattell. It's not like I go to work in the morning and then take a break and go "wow, I came up with an idea but since I am on my break, it doesn't belong to my employer". You are in essence employed 24 hours/day 7 days/week 365days/year whether you are on the clock or not.

Tell me this; whoever you work for and while you are on this website; are you still employed by that company?

I guess what I am asking, in its simplest form, is: because you work for someone, do your thoughts and ideas belong to your employer, even if you are not "on the clock"? It seems to me that the court's decision says its so.

The simplest answer is; yes.

part of that theory is; you would not have had that idea had you not been working for that company and as such, they are the inspiration for that idea and as such, have the rights to it.

As well, this guy was hired to design new products for Mattel. It's not like the arguement of; well, I clean toilets so I have nothing to do with design (although that one doesn't work either simply because of the; you work there and are exposed to their trade secrets and various sources of input that may inspire you to come up with something). Since he was specifically hired as a designer, what he designed during that time in his life becomes the property of his employer, unless there was a contractual agreement for things to be something else.

[BOR]

work product. He actually designed them while employed at Mattell.

More commonly known as:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

Many technical companies, such as chemical ones, indeed own any inventions/discoveries an employee chemist produces while in the scope of employment.

[aaron]

I believe he tried to claim that he was on hiatus when he came up with the Bratz idea. The problem is, the jury didn't believe him.

[jk]

More commonly known as:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

Many technical companies, such as chemical ones, indeed own any inventions/discoveries an employee chemist produces while in the scope of employment.

work for hire would only be part of the situation. In this situation, this is the basis for the action but I was also attempting to explain the situation I mistakenly termed work product. Often an employer claims rights to any creation while a person is employed by them, even if they are not hired in the capacity of creating such products. From what I understand, it is simplified by a contractual agreement at the time of hire but even without the contract, I believe any product, at least those with some relevence to the employers business, can be argued to be the employers due to the influence of the employer and the employment in general.

I thought it could be applied to products not related to the area of the employers general business as well but not so sure on that part.

[zedex]

Ok, now it is much cleaer about how the findings were made. I have never heard of such stuff. I guess your brain belongs to the employer 24/7/365 or until either party terminates the relationship.

It would seem that "off the clock" hours your brain, thoughts and ideas would become your property again until you clock in next time, but perhaps not.

So, in this case, is there anyway Mattel could have sued for authorship if the employee had resigned and immediately sold his idea to another company? Could this rule work retroactively?- and if so, how far back?