2 ms·

I'll look this up. Much thanks.

hga 16y ago
Very clearly the protections in Sections 2780-2782 of California law (see link in other posting) would not apply to this case, as the doll line was "Relate[ed] at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business." BTW, a quick skim of the Wikipedia article on the contrariety indicated it's not entirely settled and one of the issues was if the designer was truly employed by Mattel between what was claimed as two separate periods of employment. A very messy case, but a good warning to be careful about these sorts of things just in case your startup is a really big hit.
- byoung2 16y ago
  one of the issues was if the designer was truly employed by Mattel between what was claimed as two separate periods of employment I remember during the case this was a big issue...did the leave of absence and subsequent return constitute a termination of employment and reinstatement. At first Mattel argued that he continued to be an employee, and therefore they owned the designs. Bryant went to work for Mattel in 1995 as a designer of fashions, hairstyles and makeup for its Barbie line. While at Mattel, he signed a "confidential information and inventions" agreement which gave Mattel the exclusive rights to all "developments, designs, know-how, data" and other items created by Bryant while he worked for the company. However, Bryant took a leave of absence in 1998 and returned to Mattel approximately 8 months later. It is during that critical time frame that Bryant contends he created "Bratz". http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/blogs/copyrightandtrademarklawblog/archive/2008/06/19/Barbie-v.-Bratz_3A00_-Copyright-Litigation-Gets-_1C20_Dolled-Up_1D20_.aspx http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/b... I believe they later agreed that there were indeed two separate periods of employment, but that the designs were still Mattel's because he came up with the ideas while at Mattel, and later sketched them during the leave. Furthermore, it was later revealed that he had used Mattel company time and resources to develop the idea after he returned from leave, including asking coworkers to help create a prototype, and using the phone and fax to make deals with MGA (http://www.iplawforstartups.com/startup-launch-bratz-doll-designers-100-million-dollar-mistakes/ http://www.iplawforstartups.com/startup-launch-bratz-doll-de...).

hga 16y ago

Very clearly the protections in Sections 2780-2782 of California law (see link in other posting) would not apply to this case, as the doll line was "Relate[ed] at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business." BTW, a quick skim of the Wikipedia article on the contrariety indicated it's not entirely settled and one of the issues was if the designer was truly employed by Mattel between what was claimed as two separate periods of employment. A very messy case, but a good warning to be careful about these sorts of things just in case your startup is a really big hit.

byoung2 16y ago
one of the issues was if the designer was truly employed by Mattel between what was claimed as two separate periods of employment I remember during the case this was a big issue...did the leave of absence and subsequent return constitute a termination of employment and reinstatement. At first Mattel argued that he continued to be an employee, and therefore they owned the designs. Bryant went to work for Mattel in 1995 as a designer of fashions, hairstyles and makeup for its Barbie line. While at Mattel, he signed a "confidential information and inventions" agreement which gave Mattel the exclusive rights to all "developments, designs, know-how, data" and other items created by Bryant while he worked for the company. However, Bryant took a leave of absence in 1998 and returned to Mattel approximately 8 months later. It is during that critical time frame that Bryant contends he created "Bratz". http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/blogs/copyrightandtrademarklawblog/archive/2008/06/19/Barbie-v.-Bratz_3A00_-Copyright-Litigation-Gets-_1C20_Dolled-Up_1D20_.aspx http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/b... I believe they later agreed that there were indeed two separate periods of employment, but that the designs were still Mattel's because he came up with the ideas while at Mattel, and later sketched them during the leave. Furthermore, it was later revealed that he had used Mattel company time and resources to develop the idea after he returned from leave, including asking coworkers to help create a prototype, and using the phone and fax to make deals with MGA (http://www.iplawforstartups.com/startup-launch-bratz-doll-designers-100-million-dollar-mistakes/ http://www.iplawforstartups.com/startup-launch-bratz-doll-de...).