More on the Bratz case and the chill on creativity

I also agree with Kim. You're hired to design, that's why you draw a paycheck. If anything, it's dishonest for a designer to withhold ideas. I mean, they pay you for all the loser ideas you come up with too so fair is fair. If you think it's unfair then you have the option to start your own enterprise and bear all the costs of product development, marketing and distribution. I work with tons of product designers, very few have the skills needed to bring a completed project to fruition. Transaction costs are spread enterprise wide and employees benefit. So this guy had a product driven idea that was successful; what of the guy in accounting who's idea streamlined receivables? Where's his compensation? It's tragic that culturally, we assign more brownie points for the most obvious manifestations of "creativity" while ignoring the contributions of others. ps. feel free to delete this but a "blog" is the whole shooting match. "More on the Bratz case and the chill on creativity" is an entry to your blog "Out of the Toy Box". If you write blogs, people are assuming you have other sites with entirely different urls.

Let's take a minute to step aside and look at this from a different angle. The Mattel/Bratz lawsuit has revealed an interesting but sad aspect of the industry that every designer who works for a manufacturer or an invention firms recognizes. The issue? All of our ideas are owned by our employers. Every mental note jotted down, every napkin sketch to every full-color rendering or prototype; it's theirs if we did it while we were employed by them. My sad tale: I used to work at an invention firm, but then it closed. So what happened to all of my ideas, concepts, etc. that were anywhere from a fully-developed prototype to a yet-to-be-developed idea shared during a brainstorming session? They're still property of that company even though it only exists on paper. Upsetting, right? Four years of ideas trapped with a company that will never see them made! It's not like the company needs them anymore, but legally they passed on with the company. So I had two choices, I could be the honest person and mourn the loss and move on, or I could keep my fingers crossed that no one would notice that I was trying to sell these old ideas. I chose option A, as should every designer. As much as it stinks, and as much as you cannot believe you're last employer (existent or not) was a muppet for letting your ideas wither away, they're not yours to peddle around to the top buyer. In the end, I've learned my lesson and I'm working for myself. But what should the staff designers do? Well, if it's your million-dollar idea you might want to keep it to yourself, because once you open your mouth or jot it down at work, it's theirs. So Anon, while I agree with you that honest people don't have to worry – I also strongly agree with Richard that creativity is stifled because this lawsuit reminds us designers why we sometimes don't want to share our best ideas if we really want them to see the light of day.

No, punishing dishonesty is not a justification for "draconian" laws. It is the logical consequence of a time-honored belief that crime shouldn't pay. It is also the recognition that one cannot excuse one's wrongdoing by claiming the consequences of righting that wrong are just too much to bear. In fact, MGA argued extensively to the judge -- a judge who heard months of evidence -- that the punishment of an injunction would be excessive. He disagreed. The real fault for all this, as both the judge and the jury also found, lies squarely on MGA's doorstep. As for as the suggestion that some vaguely attributed sources and an antecdotal sampling of "opinions" supports your view, one scarcely knows what to do with it. You are listening to who? MGA, Larian, Bryant and their PR people perhaps? In any case, the idea that creativity will be chilled is nonsense. Companies need to make sure that anyone conveying them rights indeed has the rights to do so. Responsible ones do that every day and have been doing so for decades. MGA, in contrast, took what the jury found it knew belonged to Mattel and then lied for years to cover it up. Perhaps you can tell us how punishing that kind of misconduct chills anything, let alone creativity.