The court of appeals
overturned the verdict against MGA, saying that:
” (1) MGA deserved “sweat equity for making and marketing the
dolls” and (2) that Mattel could not lawfully claim a monopoly over dolls.”
Now Mattel is suing again:
Mattel said in a brief filed Feb. 27 with the
U.S Court of Appeals that “after two trials and eight years of litigation,” it
isn’t contesting the jury’s finding that MGA didn’t infringe Mattel’s copyright
when it developed the dolls from an idea and drawings by a former Mattel
designer.
The El Segundo, California-based maker of the
Barbie doll said it wants the appeals court to throw out the $172.5 million MGA
won on its counterclaims that Mattel stole its trade secrets.
I disagree with Mattel’s decision to sue again. As one
analyst says:
“At
this point, the Bratz brand -- once valued at about $1 billion -- is viewed by
industry analysts as far less valuable than when the litigation started.”
If Mattel wins, but Bratz can’t
afford to pay them, then what? What is the point? Isn’t Mattel in the business
of making toys, not doing lawsuits? Didn’t they prove their point that they
will aggressively go after any company that takes their intellectual property
or violates their trade secrets? Rather than wasting time and lots of money on
lawsuits that, as the previous trials have shown, can be ruled in favor of
either side, they should instead ‘stick to the knitting’ and concentrate on
their core toy business, lest their competitors see this as an opportunity to
strike at those toy business while they are distracted with the lawsuits. Didn’t
they remember Novell, (who spent a lot of time and money going after Microsoft),
and countless other companies that went bankrupt while pursuing legal actions
instead of focusing on their core businesses? Even if you are right, there
comes a time when you need to let go and move on, otherwise all this backwards
looking will cause you bigger problems in your core business.
No comments:
Post a Comment