Labels

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Week 8 EOC: Bratz Brawl

One of the more epic IP battles has come to an end. Mattel (Barbie) and MGA Entertainment (Bratz), have spent most of a decade in various courtrooms hashing out the ultra-serious question about which of these companies is entitled to the Bratz millions.


I don’t understand why the person who made bratz wants all the money for creating them, if he was working for Barbie, then his inspiration for it obviously came from them, I think he could at least spare some of the profits from what he made, and just working for Barbie, he probably only gets paid like an original employee, but if he made something for for the company that made millions, he would probably be paid a lot more than an original employee.

Long story short, a former Mattel employee left the company and crafted one of the first serious threats to Barbie's dominance, the Bratz dolls. Mattel, of course, was none too happy because the designer was still employed by Mattel when he came up with the idea. Mattel felt it owned the idea and sued the designer in an effort to make that a reality.


Forget everything I just said about what I thought the creator of bratz should do. If he came up with the idea while he was working for mattel, that means he had an idea, he could have done nothing and then Barbie wouldn’t have done anything, but he quit before he actually pursued the idea and created his own thing, I don’t know why mattel thinks they own the idea, it doesn’t even make sense why they think they own it, if somebody had an idea and made it for mattel that wasn’t that good, they would probably let them keep the idea and let them make what they want from it, but if somebody tried to make their own idea and it was good, and it wasn’t an idea for them, they would claim it as theirs even though the creator no longer works for them, to me that’s just greed.

Mattel, which had originally filed the suit, was being hit with a judgment for $309 million in damages, including MGA's court fees. Adding that together with Mattel's legal expenses, and this fight over dolls put Mattel on the hook for nearly $700 million.



I think for just an idea, that is a bit much for them to pay, I think mattel overreacted a bit when they wanted all future plans for bratz but I don’t see any reason why they should pay so much for court charges, the only people I think that are winning this case are the lawyers .

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Week 7 EOC: Lawyers


Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)
702.938.6873 

Jennifer Ko Craft

Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)
702.796.5555
Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)
702-979-2405
Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)
702-385-2500
Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)
702-475-9056

Lars A. Perry

Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)

775-850-1500
Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)
702-763-9530
Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)
702.784.5280
Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)
888-336-9296
Las Vegas, Nevada (Clark Co.)

702.938.6883

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Week 6: EOC: Supreme court prayer


A divided Supreme Court, debating Wednesday whether public prayers at a New York town's board meetings are permissible, looked at the country's history of religious acknowledgment in the legislature and the court's own traditions.
I don’t get why its such a big deal to people that they do a prayer, people say it offends them because they are not religious or they believe in a different religion, I think its been going on long enough for people to get used to, and I don’t understand what is so offensive about it, its people saying a prayer, if you don’t want to listen to it you don’t have to, just respect what others believe in and don’t complain about it and annoy anyone else who believe in that religion.
The town of about 94,000 residents outside Rochester began allowing prayers to start its meetings in 1999, after years of having a "moment of silence."
Why couldn't they just stick with this? And if people have such a big problem with it, they can go back to having a moment of silence. If 94,000 people can accept having a prayer, then why cant a ew other people accept it,  where were these people when they began accepting prayer, and after it had been accepted for so long why do they suddenly think that its inappropriate and has to change.
"It's very divisive when you bring government into religion," Stephens told CNN from her home. "I don't believe in God, and Susan is Jewish, so to hear these ministers talk about Jesus and even have some of them who personally question our motives, it's just not appropriate."

This doesn’t make any sense, they did a prayer to start the session, in what was did the ministers question their motives, and what makes it inappropriate, I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying a prayer before a session, and I’m not religious, but even if I was I’m not going to go on tv and make up reasons why I think its inappropriate, they act like its going to kill them if they don’t get what they want, so they make a huge case about why a little thing that effects nobody should be changed.