ABOUT YOUR BIZ

Small business owners are busier than most people on earth, and that's why Your Biz is here. For seasoned business owners and budding entrepreneurs alike, we'll tackle it all - health care, franchising, taxes, the latest gadgets and even how to balance work and life. Yes, it's possible, even when you're your own boss.

Eve Tahmincioglu

Primary author Eve Tahmincioglu has been covering small business and entrepreneurship for more than a decade. She regularly writes about small business issues for the New York Times and BusinessWeek's SmallBiz magazine. She also writes the Your Career column for MSNBC.com. She is the author of "From the Sandbox to the Corner Office."



Bratz: Whose idea is it anyway?

Posted: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:00 PM by Eve Tahmincioglu
Filed Under:

Ideas are sticky things, especially if you come up with an idea while you're working for a company and then want to leave that company with that idea and compete with your former employer.

The recent hubbub over the popular Bratz doll line involving Mattel and a designer who used to work for the toy giant is a good example of what not to do if you're working for "The Man" and have dreams of going off on your own to start a business that's similar to your old boss' company.

Mattel claimed that the company manufacturing Bratz stole the idea for the doll through a "secret collaboration" with a former Mattel toy designer. A court in California agreed with Mattel on many points in a decision late last week.

Basically, the company proved that the designer had been working for Mattel when he designed the funky, big-headed Bratz dolls, which look like a hipper version of Barbie.

This from a Mattel statement:

Today in Federal Court, a 10-person jury has rendered a unanimous decision that the majority of Bratz design drawings, prototypes and sculpts were created by doll designer Carter Bryant while he was employed by Mattel. The jury has also determined that MGA and its CEO, Isaac Larian:

-- intentionally interfered with the contractual duties owed by Bryant to Mattel;
-- aided and abetted Bryant's breach of his duty of loyalty;
-- aided and abetted Bryant's breach of the fiduciary duties he owed to Mattel; and
-- converted Mattel property for their own use.

While one-time Mattel toy designer Bryant went on to work for another company, this is an important case for aspiring entrepreneurs to think about.

Employees often decide to embark on their own ventures, and many of them believe the products they designed or the ideas they hatched while still under the employ of a company are theirs to do with as they please.

Sometimes courts disagree and find that employees have little rights to the ideas they hatch while working for a company, especially if those workers sign non-compete contracts or create the product on a company computer, or using the company's property.

Even though you may not be stealing "company" ideas, and you start your new business from the ground up, your former employer could still end up hauling you into court.

I wrote about this very thing for the New York Times a while back.

Two friends who had worked for Pitney Bowes decided to start their own venture, similar to the Pitney model, and ended up in court.

In the case of the Bratz dolls, Mattel not only sued MGA, the company making the dolls, but also its former employee, Bryant.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Bryant settled that suit for an undisclosed sum.

Supposedly, Bryant used a program to wipe his computer's hard drive clean, calling into question his credibility.

What do you all think about this decision?

Mattel doesn't seem to dispute that Bryant came up with the Bratz designs.

It seems unfair that individuals may end up not having the rights to the things they've created. Won’t these kinds of court findings put a damper on working stiffs who have visions of someday striking out on their own?

Who's to say if Mattel would have ever put money behind Bryant's Bratz concept? If they hadn't, the world may have ended up with only one ridiculously thin, plastic doll that wears ridiculously high heels.








MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

As a designer, and without knowing all the info in the case, this would seem to me like a very unfortunate ruling.  The bratz concept is clearly Bryant's, and he (along with his investors) should reap the benefits of his ingenuity and of taking the risk to start this whole new company/line of products.  Bryant didn't take anything that belongs to Mattel, as long as he didn't use their actual materials or time to perfect his designs, and they're simply upset that he is beating them at their own game (quite handily actually, Bratz are destroying Barbie's market share).  Since when does a salary entitle an employer to not only your time at work, but also what you do on your own time, and even your very thoughts and ideas?  

Mark, Grand Rapids, MI (Sent Monday, July 21, 2008 8:41 PM)

This is actually a very scary ruling.  It is basically saying that all thoughts and ideas during the time you are employed by a company are the company's property.  Did it prove that he worked on the idea during his worktime, using his work computer? Unless he had a non-compete that he could not go to or start a similar company, or some other sort of contract explicitly prohibiting this behavior, they should not have the rights to his thoughts and ideas outside of the office.  

Essa (Sent Monday, July 21, 2008 10:01 PM)

It is surprising just how common this is.  My husband has worked for several Aerospace contractors over the past several decades. With each new job or contract he has had to sign, the fine print states that anything invented or designed by him at work ...OR in his off time...becomes the intellectual property of the company for which he works.  He would have no further claim to the ideas he came up with; the employer owns the design or invention.  No, it does not appear to be fair, I agree...it is just the way they work.

jean rene, brighton, colorado (Sent Monday, July 21, 2008 11:53 PM)

had Bratz been left on the drawing board and out of little girls' impressionable minds. the world would be a far better place. They are disgusting representations of an image-focused and self-important female anti-ideal. Not to say Barbie is much better, really, but this is a Barbie who has been pimped and put on the street. Take a look at any Bratz doll and its marketing/packaging and you'll see that something is terribly wrong with the image it pushes on little girls.
-- the father of a Bratz-free 8-year-old girl

Scott (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:10 AM)

Mark, as prior press accounts reported, Bryant in fact used other Mattel employees (under apparently false pretenses) to make a Bratz doll prototype that he sold to MGA.  Is this Bryant's ingenuity?  

Anon (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:35 AM)

This is not surprising. As a scientist, all of my contracts say that anything scientific that comes in mind while I work for my company (or any company in science really) is the property of my company's. Regardless of whether I was at home, at work, or in the car.

This ruling basically fits any patent ideas or inventions of any sort that I may have.

Regardless of whether the doll was purely his idea if that idea was developed while he worked at Mattel then it belongs to Mattel. It's unfortunate, but it's definitely something I've been aware of at every scientific company and I imagine that other lines of work have similar wording in their contracts.

If you are inventive or work in a field where creative/engineering ideas or any sort come to mind. Check your contract, and know the rules.

Danielle (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:31 AM)

no Anon that has nothing to do with his ingenuity, but it also has nothing to do with who created, developed, marketed, sold, and profited off of the bratz doll line. If Mattel wants compensation for that, Bryant should pay the wages for those employees for the time they spent on his project, nothing more.  MGA will appeal this, and they will win that appeal.  

Jon (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:39 AM)

No it's not right that everything a person creates "themselves" while under employ of companies is no longer their creation but the companies but if the information in the article is correct then he was not very smart about the way he created his toy and he was very underhanded as well.  I also refuse to purchase Bratz for my children.  The images that popular culture sends out to preteen girls these days makes me ill.  Barbie had its share of controversy because of its incorrect body proportions but I always go Barbie because they are at least respectable for my girls.  Even the clothing markets are doing it now.  Wal Mart won't sell albums with bad words but they will sell 13 year olds clothes that street walkers would ware and Bratz dolls help to support that ideal.  

Ranae Kelley, Lawrence, Ks (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:39 AM)

Welcome, Mr, Bryant, to the professional world.  

If your idea were unrelated to your line of work as a doll designer, ie: building a better mousetrap, there could possibly be an understanding.  

However, you are in the presence of others of your level, sharing their creative air and if it inspires you to create something in your chosen field of occupation, then be KEENLY aware that your employer hired you and your peers exactly for your collective intellectual skills and brought you together to produce such products on their behalf.  

In the IT field, we call it "collaboration".

What was your argument again?

Stacy Riebartsch, Fort Worth, TX (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:58 PM)

So, Jon, you apparently believe that deception and crime should pay.  Oh, and how about Bryant's and MGA's widely reported destruction of evidence in a federal lawsuit?  Guess you think a parking ticket is warranted there too.

Anon, NY, NY (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:10 PM)

If Bryant did everything outside of company resources, including his time, than that is too bad and puts a damper on innovation. But it sure doesn't sound that way. Companies need some protection too. They pay higher level employees for their brains and to use them on the companies behalf.

Bratz dolls are distressing for any parent of a young girl. I don't want my daughter to aspire to be a self absorbed, materialistic, ignorant, "hard" brat. Stylish, and girlish toys with attitude are not bad, but Bratz goes way beyond that. I'm not too worried though. They will go out of favor. THey'll look as used up and as played out as a real whore. NOT COOL

Aaron Vaaler, Orlando, Florida (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:55 PM)

Stacy hits it right on the head.  This isn't about sticking it to the man.  Bryant, with MGA's deliberate help, betrayed his co-workers.  Also, in California, an employee can and does own his or her ideas if they don't relate to the employer's business and weren't developed using the employer's resources.  Bryant and MGA claimed that was what they did.  The jury found they weren't telling the truth.  It's not that complicated.

Anon, NY, NY (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:09 PM)

In this heavily litigous society we live in, it's all about he contract, or in this case, the non-compete agreement. I'm really surprised Braynt wasn't more aware of the potential ramifications, and if he was why didn't he do more to safeguard his creation up front? This sad song appears to be quite common in areas of intellectual property. Look at the horrific contracts musicians are subjected to. It's basically theft, but then again they don't have to sign. People should simply operate with more integrity in all facets of life. (read "The Four Agreements") Knowing  what agreements you are bound by, enables you to create an honorable and bullet-proof work-around. It just may mean putting something on the back burner for a time.

Sonia, Portland, OR (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:18 PM)

Bryant signed a non-compete agreement, in which he agreed that any concept or design he came up with during his employment at Mattel was the property of Mattel.  This is standard operating procedure for employees who are hired to invent or create for their employers' business.

Not only did he sign this agreement, but he also used Mattel computers and tangible resources, along with the collaborative efforts of his co-workers, on Mattel company time, to come up with the Bratz concept.

Don't get me wrong, I come from a long line of engineers and designers, and am a designer myself.  I've always felt that it was unfair that those intellectual properties that we come up with belong to the companies we work for.  But we sign the agreements as a condition of employment -- you want the job, you play by the rules.

People, this is an open and shut case.  Bryant knowingly went against his agreement, and MGA willingly engaged in the illegal activities for which they were found guilty by the jury.  They get what they deserve.

Diana Lynn, Seneca, SC (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:22 PM)

I think I was 16 years old when I became aware that "thoughts and ideas" belong to your employer. My uncle worked for a university that held seven patents due to his "ideas" while he was employed there.

Surely Bryant knew what he was doing, and although it may not seem "fair," it is definitely standard business.  My six and four year old children are already aware that everything isn't always "fair." If this grown man wasn't aware of this reality when he started down this road, I suppose he is now.

Susan, Memphis, TN (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 5:18 PM)

I'm somewhat troubled why a webpage about small business would suggest that it "seems unfair that individuals may end up not having the rights to the things they've created."  Is the point that stealing from a big company like Bryant and MGA did is necessary for the incubation of small businesses?  Isn't the theft of intellectual property by an employee just as harmful to small companies who have their property stolen?  And, even apart from all of this, how does Bryant's sale of the stolen property to another company -- MGA -- bear on anyone's dreams of striking out on their own?  That simply isn't at all what Bryant did.  Bryant stole it and sold it to a competitor to enrich himself and enrich MGA, and then they all lied to cover it up.  Hardly the stuff that small business aspirations are made of.

Daphne, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 6:39 PM)

I can’t believe there are actually people arguing for Bryant/MGA in such a clear-cut case as this. Mattel paid this guy to be creative, to design dolls. He designs a doll and then sells the idea to the competition, denying Mattel of a billion dollar business? And he thinks he can get away with that? He thinks he can basically say “Well this one I designed on Saturday when I wasn’t at work, so it’s mine”? Give me a break.

Rodney, Culver City, CA (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 6:55 PM)

If you’re a toy designer and you want to “reap the benefits” of your own creations, you should start your own toy company. You want the rewards, you take the risks. It was Mattel that invested money in this guy, by paying him wages every day he DIDN’T create a hit doll. What if every designer in their employ decided to save their best ideas ‘til they got home and could just auction them off to competitors?  

Rodney, Culver City, CA (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 6:56 PM)

It’s not like Bryant wrote a romance novel on his own time. He was paid to design TOYS, he was stealing TOY designs, and he was selling them to another TOY company. That’s exactly what the law is meant to prevent.

Rodney, Culver City, CA (Sent Tuesday, July 22, 2008 6:57 PM)

Everyone wants a piece of you, esp., the cowards employing hoards of lawyers to seal them in a protective vacuum of profit. Perhaps they ought to read some Ann Ryand.

Anthony Wrifford, Columbia, SC (Sent Wednesday, July 23, 2008 6:04 AM)

Reading this story, I was rather surprised the Bratz creator didn't see this coming. It seems like a natural assumption for anyone working for a company that relies on people's ideas to make money.

During orientation and after reading the employee handbook of my present employer, it became very clear that if one wanted to turn a profit off of his/her ideas, one would have to keep his/her mouth shut and abstain from expressing the idea until one's employment with the company expired. And even then, one is left with the impression that one's ideas are not safe because the company could pursue one if the ideas include the company's processes in their implementation.

Cali Cat, Los Angeles Area, CA (Sent Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:08 AM)

I agree with the ruling. The Bratz dolls are pretty clearly a rip-off of Barbie - except they target the 'hoochie-mama' audience. They are a terrible role model to present to the target audience of young girls - overly made up and sexy. I hope this takes them right off the market.

purpleamy - Mass (Sent Wednesday, July 23, 2008 12:58 PM)

Mattel's ultimate goal was to kill the competition to Barbie. Now that Mattel has won, the Bratz line maybe a thing of the past. In a few weeks it will be, Bryant who?

Marc Benitez, La Quinta, CA (Sent Wednesday, July 23, 2008 1:02 PM)

In my opinion, the is the right decision for this case.  You need to keep in mind that while Bryant was working for Mattel, he was exposed to all of the creative ideas discussed regarding Mattel products.  Who is to say whether the Bratz concept was developed by Bryant as a result of the creative environment created by his employer.  I work in this same type of environment and often the ideas generated are a direct result of the interaction of the individuals within the company.  Had he not been working for the company, would he have conceived the concept?  In fact, Bryant was not originally a doll designer, he was a playwrite and composer.  His career was formulated by the suceess he enjoyed while employed by Mattel  The same employer that he chose to cheat.  Cretive individuals will argue to their last breath that all of their ideas are original.  Ideas are a result of your interaction with your environment.  The environment that created Bratz was generated by the company known as Mattel.  

Jon, Chicago (Sent Wednesday, July 23, 2008 1:53 PM)

I would bet that Bryant got health insurance, life insurance, and paid vacations and sick time when he worked for Mattel. That's the rub when you have a full time job. Be creative and enterprising on your own time if you want to be an entrepreneur, or work without a safety net. You can't have it all.

Michael Klein, Baltimore, MD (Sent Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:47 PM)

This ruling is unfair because Mattel passed on the idea.  This means that every idea you come up with while working for a company belongs to that company, even if they pass on it!  So you may have a brilliant concept, but if the company can't see it, you are also handcuffed from ever being able to bring it to the light of day, post-employment with said company.

John Merch, Nashville, TN (Sent Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:48 PM)

Rulings such as these will significantly harm collaboration and innovation.  How can you risk showing anyone any of your ideas?  No matter what the response may be, the company automatically owns the rights to that idea and you can never bring it in to production without convincing someone far less creative that it is a good idea.  Bad ruling!

Dan Fathers, Franklin, TN (Sent Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:52 PM)

They do have a point that the the company is not only paying for work but also paying for the intellectual properties of creative expertise for which they paid this guy.  He wasn't hired for his drawing ability, he was hired as an asset to generate concepts for a company.  Therefore, the concepts belong to the company.  It's hard to argue with a unanimous decision by a jury, in most cases.

Doug Smith, Huntsville, AL (Sent Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:59 PM)

John Merch's claim that Mattel passed on Bratz is wrong.  Bryant testified that he hid Bratz from Mattel and deceived other Mattel employees to get them to work on it, not that he presented it to Mattel or that Mattel passed on it.

Anon, NY, NY (Sent Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:31 PM)

If you are working as a toy designer at a Company, then all the designs you come up with belong to the Company.

The work you do at your place of employment isn't yours (GM employees don't keep the cars they make).

Greg (Sent Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:33 PM)

For those who think this ruling will kill innovation, you are dead wrong.  It is a simple choice, you can either freelance and sell your ideas to the highest bidder, or work for someone who will pay you for your ideas. This is not kindergarten.  This is the real world.  Everyone is free to make their own choice and must live with the consequences.  If that means your idea is not carried forward, then tough.  Grow up and understand what this is all about.  MGA and Isaac Larian are not good people.  They stole the idea.  Whoever said to think about Bryants co-workers who helped with this process hit it right on the head.  Did they get $30MM??  I think not.  To also think that Bratz are different now than the first year, is just plain stupid.  MGA stole the idea, that has been proven, Isaac helped to steal the idea, that has been proven, and they profited from stolen property.  Not just the first year, but every year after.  They would not have the profits or line today if it were not for the first year, it has been built.  Think of a thief coming into your home, stealing a manuscript that you owned, then resold the manuscript and charged royalties for years after, that manuscript made him unbelievable rich.  Would you only want the manuscript back?  Allow the thief to keep what he gained?  Allow everyone but you to profit from your property?  Just accept all this and walk away?  You would be a fool to do this.  They need to hit MGA and Isaac Larian where it hurts, in the pocket so this will deter others in the future.  The upside may be companies will actually value creative more rather than less.  

Jon, Chicago (Sent Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:39 PM)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=t5jmSKEaqtk

Enough said.

FurJay, Melbourne, VIC. (Sent Friday, July 25, 2008 9:48 AM)

I have to admit, I am a bit shocked at all the replies supporting Mattel and the standard business practice of non-compete agreements.

I will use an analogy to prove my point.  

Do any of us consider it fair, just, or ethical that we only have a choice of 2 broadband/DVR/TV providers in an area?

None of those companies have an incentive to increase broadband speeds because it would undermine their own TV/Video on Demand/VoIP services.

So they collude together and keep broadband speeds low, far lower than most westernized countries.


We do have a choice there.  I have stopped paying for CableTV and Video on Demand.


When it comes to employment, none of us have a choice, we all have to work to survive.

So scientists, engineers, and designers have to all work at McDonalds then in order to own their ideas and develop them?

It is ridiculous. Stop being sheep. We may be forced into intellectual slavery in order to work but we don't have to support it.

Bob, Manchester, CT (Sent Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:06 AM)



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

 Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)