“In Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., No. 09-55673 (9th Cir. July 22, 2010), a Mattel employee (under an employment agreement assigning his work product to Mattel) two-timed his employer by providing a rival toy company with the idea for, and sketches and a crude sculpt of, a doll that MGA eventually transformed into the successful BRATZ line of dolls and characters.” http://secondarymeaning.blogspot.com
The basic background and elements of the case is as follows:
Carter Bryant was an employee at Mattel, working in the “Barbie Collectibles” section designing hair styles and fashions for their high-end dolls, not the dolls themselves. In August of 2000, he pitched his idea for Bratz dolls to two employees of MGA, subsequently being called back by the CEO of MGA and taking some initial sketches and a crude “dummy” doll made from scraps from Mattel bins. The conflict comes in because he was still working for Mattel at the time. Bryant signed a consultant agreement on October 4, 2000 with MGA, even though the document was dated for September that year, and gave Mattel notice on October 4, 2000 finishing up his employment on October 19, 2000. During this time, however, he was also working with MGA on the Bratz doll idea. When Mattel found out that Bryant was behind the Bratz line, they sued saying that the Bratz name and the initial sketches belonged to them and won. After establishing ownership, Mattel sued MGA for $1 billion dollars for copyright infringement, saying that Bryant should have given his ideas, sketches, etc. to Mattel because of an employment agreement that Bryant signed when he went to work for Mattel. Bryant and MGA claimed that he came up with the idea on his “off” time and that it was in no way connected to his duties at Mattel, which encompassed hair styles and clothing designs for Barbies, therefore he should own the work. Mattel argued that the employment agreement stated that they would own the rights to any “inventions” created by Bryant and inventions included his ideas.
The District Court sided with Mattel, interpreting the part of his agreement stating “at any time of my employment” included his off time, basically giving them all rights to the Bratz line of dolls. However, on appeal to the Circuit Court, the opinion given by Chief Judge Kozinski, overturned this decision, saying that the wording in the employment agreement was ambiguous and did not include consignment of Bryant’s “ideas” to Mattel because his agreement used the word “inventions” instead, to which Mattel would have owned during his course of employment. Other employees at Mattel had testified as to both interpretations, one saying that everyone worked on other things on their off time and that those creations would belong to them, another testified that everything he created while employed at Mattel belonged to Mattel. Kozinski opined that it was MGA’s extensive development, marketing and investment that propelled the Bratz line to become such a success and that Mattel was not entitled to the efforts of all of their hard work. As it stands now, the case can and probably will be taken back to court to determine if the original sketches and the Bratz name actually belong to Mattel.
Which brings us and the courts to determine, can you own an idea? The example given in this case was that Degas could not stop other artists from painting ballerinas because then the first person that comes up with an idea would then have a monopoly over that idea. This brings up the old adage “to build a better mousetrap”. In other words, certain basic components that are not protected by law, when arranged in a new way with certain unique characteristics becomes a different “expression” of a design or idea and can be protected by law. The court decided, I think correctly, that Mattel did not have the monopoly on fashion dolls with a bratty look. I also feel that since Bryant’s employment agreement did not clarify that “at any time” also included his off hours, his work done during this time should belong to him. If Mattel was paying him for 24 hour-a-day employment that would be different but I am almost sure that he had certain hours specified as to his employment and as long as he did not infringe upon those specified hours with outside ideas or work, Mattel should not be able to claim ownership. What if I drop off to sleep thinking about work and dream of a great new “idea” that may in some way connect to my employment indirectly, should my employer also be able to claim ownership of my dreams? An idea is intangible, and as such, should not be declared property by someone else, employer or otherwise, unless they can prove that they, too, had the same revelation in exactly the same expression.
Our book distinguishes between ideas and tangible creations as follows:
“Trade secret protection for ideas should be contrasted with copyright protection, which only protects the actual expression of the idea and not the idea itself. Because of this difference, trade secret law can often best protect the conception and development stages of a work before it is finally fixed in a tangible medium and published, at which point copyright protection takes over.” CP&T pg. 506, Stim, 9th Ed.
No comments:
Post a Comment