Here is a link to an article describing the events.
Jurors also had to decide if Mattel had proven ownership of the idea for the name "Bratz" and the general concept of a multi-ethnic group of hip, urban dolls with oversize heads and feet, large eyes and lips, tiny noses and small bodies.
Multi-ethnic, hip, urban.... nothing about that says Mattel to me. There was a heck of a lot of money spent fighting this court case. I wish they had put the hundreds of millions they spent fighting into producing better dolls. Heck, if they just surveyed the people who buy their dolls, they would have a clearer idea of what would sell. They seem to operate in a vacuum, throwing darts and guessing what will sell. Then, when they find something that sells well, they discontinue it. I think they should do like Disney. For the product lines that sell well, that have been discontinued, reintroduce them to the market (i.e. Fashion Fever Outfits, Happy Family Dolls and products, etc).
The third statement in the article, which irritated me to no end,
Mattel argued during trial that the contract gave it ownership of all products invented during Bryant's employment at Mattel and also established Mattel's ownership of Bryant's ideas. Attorneys for Mattel also told jurors that the contract language covered Bryant's activities during his evenings and weekends.
Corporate companies can be criminal, at times. How do you claim ownership over someone's ideas? They want to keep you a slave to their company. They don't want you to be creative except to make them money. No company could ever pay me enough to own my ideas!