Thursday, December 5, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)