tv Orly Lobel You Dont Own Me CSPAN February 10, 2018 8:00am-9:01am EST
[applause]. .. >> on our "after words" program, black lives matter cofounder patrice khan colors discusses her life, activism and the gunnings of the black -- beginnings of the black lives matter movement. also this weekend you'll see a recent book party for james o'keefe, project veritas author and author of my fright for truth in -- my fight for truth in the the era of fake news. and laura wise-munoz provides
profiles of several daca recipients. that's just a handful of the programs this weekend on booktv on c-span2. for a complete schedule, visit booktv.org. now we kick off the weekend with orly lobel who examines the arguments over creativity and intellectual property. [inaudible conversations] >> good evening, everyone, and welcome to the latest installment of the coop author series. we are pleased to have with us orliy lobel.
she has taught and lectured worldwide including law schools at yale, tel aviv and beijing. she is the professor of law at university of san diego and the or author of award winning business book "talent wants to be free." her most recent book, "you don't own me," was recently described in the new yorker as a hair-raising account of an epic tale, and the financial times describe asked it as a real page-turner of the decade-long court battle between toy companies over the ownership of the immensely popular bratz dolls. please join me in welcoming our guest for the evening, orly ol ol -- lobel. >> thank you. so this is really special for me to be here at the harvard coop
bookstore because i spent many years as a graduate student here at harvard square, here at harvard university just roaming the shelves of the coop and loving it and really being inspired by all the different disciplines in a way that still continues to impact my research, my writing, my thinking about ethics and market competition and justice and all the, you know, interesting stuff that we see around us. how do we create culture, how are social icons made, equality and fairness. and this is really also how i got to this book. so i'll tell you a little bit about how i started thinking about writing this book and how
it opened so many windows into a lot of different issues that are really kind of of the moment and we really care about in so many ways. so "you don't own me" starts in our current times. it starts when barbie -- blue-eyed, blond, tiny waist, very large breasts, very cold and never changing -- has dominated our markets, our images of womanhood, our childhood and our parenting for basically 60 years, since her introduction in the american market by mattel in 1959. and the story starts when finally after really dominating 90% of the market around the
world, for the first time ever without mattel even expecting it, suddenly almost, you know, right now in current times in the beginning of the 21st century suddenly the holiday season brings a new doll, a current kind of doll, a bratty doll, a fuller, more multi-ethnic, more sassy, trendy, something that sort of more reflects what the tastes of children, girls have right now. suddenly they sort of -- it comes out on the market without mattel expecting competition, and as the judge in one of the many moments of the trial says knocks bar by off her -- barbie off her pedestal. and so the story begins with a very unlikely hero.
think about a shy elton john, a very creative young designer, carter bryant, who always dreams about being a fashion designer, has been sketching from childhood all sorts of angels and fairies, and he describes himself as being sort of that awkward boy when he was growing up in los angeles who, while other boys were maybe playing with trucks and cars and with balls outside, you know, soccer, he was actually playing with barbie. and his, and reading fashion magazines, and his mother was very supportive. she actually testified in court about all of this. and he wants to be in high fashion, but the second best when you're working in los
angeles is this conglomerate, mattel, that criminals such a big market share and has such, you know, huge purchasing power of, you know, talent. he takes a job designing barbie clothes. he becomes really frustrated with the culture of mattel. he feels like it's been very stagnant, there's not acceptance of new ideas. barbie is never be changing. and, actually, when i did a lot of the research and interviews and kind of intense discovery of the corporate culture at mattel, i actually uncover this term that mattel executives use about not introducing competition to barbie, and they say we don't want to cannibalize barbie. they don't want to eat up, you know, what is so dominant in girls' you know, play rooms and
in the, what we call the pink shelves of the toy stores. so he goes away for some time, takes time off mattel, he goes back to missouri, he sketches some sketches, and there's a lot -- i mean, part of the roller coaster decade-long litigation is how do you actually show a moment of eureka, and where does innovation and creativity come from. but he has inspiration when he's away from mattel, also weekends and nights that becomes a big defense that is part of the trial, that he, you know, was not working at mattel when he thinks about this idea of a bratty doll. and he sells it to a competitor, and they develop without, you know, mattel knowing -- he leaves mattel, and they develop a huge empire that, as i said, knocks barbie off her pedestal.
so i want to read to you, actually, to sort of set the stage the very first photographer from not even the first chapter, the introduction of "you don't own me" to give you some sense of how the story begins. she was blond and beautiful, statuesque with long, slender legs, a tiny waist and a chest so large that finnish researchers claimed any similarly endowed woman would surely tip over. for years carter bryant dutifully served her. he styled her hair, dressed her in skirt, dresses and luxurious gowns, adorned her in jewelry and even applied her makeup. she always looked fabulous. day after day, week after week she was unblemished, shiny and new. and in a $3 billion industry she dominated over 90% market share for five decades. perhaps that was carter, what carter despised, her perfection,
absence of a single flaw. she never changed. while people gained weight, their skin wrinkled and sagged, their hair grayed, barbie stood perfect and frozen against a changing world. while she remained ageless and pristine, the world she had been born into ceased to exist. everything was raunchier and more preverse. barbie remained maddeningly clean. carter saw beauty in the broken, the peculiar, the year, perhaps even the grotesque. like many people trapped in dead-end jobs, he experienced the angst of a servant. he imagined a new icon that better reflected the mod everybody world -- modern world, using the real people. carter had not intendered to assault barbie's -- intended to assault barbie's public image. he could not have consciously dared to dream of the millions
he would make from his rebellion, the millions in ini suing losses -- ensuing losses and the decade-long legal battle that would forever alter both the entire toy industry and the very laws governing creativity9 and competition. he certainly couldn't have foreseen the incredibly ferocious feud between his overpowering ex-employer and the flamboyant entrepreneur who gambled and risked it all to take a chance on him. nor did he predict that lawyers would drag both his life partner and his mother jane to testify on his behalf, asking them to reveal deep-seeded, intimate details of his life and passions. most certainly, his dreams would not have included suffering depressioning and a stroke at the age of 41. carter bryant only wanted to build his own dream house away from barbie.
so the story begins with carter bryant, but what is fascinating and what drew me to tell this story that i thought had to be told was that in order for barbie to be knocked off her pedestal and in order for a new doll line to thrive, really like a greek tragedy the parent had to be written off. and and carter bryant, the individual, becomes sort of a pawn and then, you know, just disappears really from the scene. and this is still a david v. goliath story, but the david here is not carter bryant. it's actually a much more powerful david. it is isaac larion, a jewish-iranian immigrant who starts, found his own toy company and is really kind of
that old, he's the owner now because of bratz, the largest, most lucrative, privately-held toy company in the united states. because he really has that ability to go over, go after or resist the goliath, mattel, that as the story unfolds you see how it really uses everything it can to fight off competition, different expressions, images of barbie that they don't control. so going after not just entrepreneurs and other toymaker, but going after artists that represent barbie in a different way, musicians, film producers. there's just sort of a roller coaster story of who mattel, you know, i views in that, in the scene as presenting challenges.
and another thing that was fascinating is how much history repeats in this sense, because when you actually go to, when i started uncovering the history of these dolls and these cultural icons, it turns out that barbie from her very inception was also not really created by whoever thought that she was createed, or just like mattel said that they own bratz because an ex-employee had thought about the idea for bratz, barr by's -- barbie's inexception can be traced to -- inception can be traced to the new world, the american company, and the old world where she was fulled. and there's kind of a secret, dark history there of merger man
porn origins -- of her german porn origins that mattel didn't want us to know about. how was it that in the '50s suddenly a fashion doll came into the scene? because before that, you know, girls would play with baby dolls, kind of imagining themselves as mothers maybe. but for the first time, they're playing with, you know, a real -- not very realistic, but a grown-up woman with unrealistic proportions. and you start seeing all these colorful characters from the past. and, again, seeing how, you know, history repeats in that sense. so i'll realize to you -- i'll read to you a little bit about if you've watched "mad men" and you know about some of the history of advertising and marketing in the '50s and the '60s and the whole culture
there. this is the real kind of "mad men." so they hire this guru, another immigrant, austrian immigrant who really transforms the way that marketing is done, and mattel is really innovative in using consumer psychology, really psychology, freudian psychology in marketing and advertising. so this is the marketing guru they hire. in the 1950s he transformed products beyond their mundane function. soap was about sensuality, not personal hygiene. fact relieved stress, symbolized -- tobacco relieved stress and was a reward for a good day at the office. and smoking and health concerns, efforts to reduce the amount of smoking signify a willingness to sacrifice pleasure in order to assuage their feeling of guilt.
guilt may cause harmful, physical effects not at all caused by the cigarettes used which may be extremely mild. such guilt feelings alone may be the real cause of the injurious consequences rather than a lethal habit, tobacco smoking, he said, was comparable to sucking at the nipples of a gigantic world breast. and i apologize for the audience that brought kids. [laughter] one campaign displayed a man smoking next to his date captioned: smoking rounds out other forms of enjoyment, elicits six then along with tobacco as another reward for a good day at the office. lipstick, too, was a phallic play on that desire and sub consciously hinted to women and men buying makeup for women an invitation to fellatio. triggers men's fantasies of a mistress. and he writes all of this, and
he actually is very, very clear about what he is trying to do in his marketing. and then, you know, suddenly he's asked, well, how about marketing to children? how do we do that? how do we convince mothers to buy a clearly sexualizedded doll for their little girls? and there's a lot of thought that i sort of uncover in the book. the other thing that i want to say about what drew me to tell this story which, you know, again, it's sort of this legal thriller that opens so many questions about our contemporary times and how we compete is that this case really -- i started looking at it when i was writing my previous book, "talent wants to be free," and then i was showing sort of more in the, in my research field how employers have this mindset of not letting employees use their own ideas and not letting them move from
competitor to competitor and how that has not only a real cost on the lives of workers and our careers, but actually on regions and what kind of products we have and what consumers can experience and how innovation happens and how collaboration happens. and i was very honored and fortunate that in the summer of 2016 i actually got a call from the white house. i like saying that, so i'll say it again. i got a call from the white house to talk about "talent wants to be free" before people from the president's, president obama's policy team and representatives from the treasury department, the department of justice and the labor department as well as representatives from the states, the various straits. and they were -- states. and they were very concerned about non-compete policy that i was researching and a lot of
scholarly articles that i published and in "talent wants to be free." and i became part of a working group that in october 2016 was kind of culminated in the president's call to action to the states to try to curtail this rise in trying to fence the mobility of employees. but when i -- the more and more i looked at this case in "you don't own me" of mattel, it became clear to me it's not just about the pure non-compete clauses, but there are a lot of different areas of law and ways, and contractual ways like in this case of asking employees -- and we've all signed these contracts with whatever industry you work at -- asking them to assign all of their ideas, all of their know-how, all of their creations, creativity, innovation, inventions at weekends and nights included to the employer and really de facto
creating these fences even if you don't use the blunt language of you can't move to a competitor. so i started delving into this case, but when i did, of course, the cinematic quality and the roller coaster, you know, wild facts and the colorful personalities of this case just became very, very clear. it became clear that it's not just about that. that we have here a case that opens questions about the american dream, the rise of feminism, the making of icons, about marketing and consumer psychology, about betrayal, spying, racism. one of the reviewers said it's a is civil action set in toy stores. and another reviewer said elle woods -- referring to "legally
blond" -- would eat this story alive. and i think, you know, what happens in the trial really, when you read it, you get a sense of how much the kind of battle or dispute that starts as though it's a contractual dispute between an employer, a powerful corporation and a previous employee. you see how it becomes really about the emotions and the passions and ther rationallalties a lot of times -- irrationalities a lot of times of executives operating in markets and how there's often times this use of the courtroom as a shej hammer to kind of -- sledgehammer to kind of work things out that should be worked out in the market context. so one of the things that is really fascinating is how, how much these personalities matter. you can see this because this trial happened twice. and this is what i keep referring to as roller coaster
events. the same facts and the same, you know, plaintiff and defendants, when they come before a different jury, two sets of juries, two sets of judges, two sets of attorneys because the teams of attorneys change, it becomes a completely different environment, completely different trial and sort of setting in the courtroom. and claims about, actually, the corporate ethics of the very corporation that initiated the trial come about. so in this, in the kind of next rounds of, you know, the trial one of the things that starts happening and is very important is that mga, who was sued by mattel as having stolen this idea for a brat9ty doll
because -- bratty doll because they hired a former employee, they find out a lot of details about what mattel has been doing to them and other competitors. so i'll read to you a couple paragraphs on this. mga couldn't figure out how mattel was anticipating its every move until a mattel insider jumped ship and is revealed shocking information about mattel's practices. keller, jennifer keller who's the attorney that comes onboard later and really shifts the whole kind of jury emotions, told the jury that mattel was the worst type of fender in the of offender in the corporate espionage world, the kind that maintains its own corporate espionage department. they had a manual called how to steal manual that was internally used. she described to the jury mattel's conduct as unlawful, outrageous, despicable and argued that it cost mga tens of
millions in losses. mga presented evidence that while mattel was preparing for its final attack on mga in the courtroom, it also engaged in illegal economic espionage. mga terms mattel's scorched earth strategy as the worst type of market battle. together these two frontiers -- litigation and spying -- became mattel's greatest weapons in the innovation wars. litigation to drive competition out of the market and spying to gain an unfair advantage over the hearts and dollars of consumers. as mga told the jury, barbie was flailing, and barbie was failing, and mattel executives were in a tate of panic. mattel's -- in a state of panic. mattel's desperation grew as bratz's population exploded. in internal memos, mattel employees were instructed to use the code name nhb instead of
mga. can you crack the code? nhb is one letter off mga. bringing to mind another shift of letters in space odyssey, the sentient computer h.a.l. is often thought to be based on a one-letter shift from the name ibm, though this has been denied by stanley kubrick. mattel too denied that nhb was a code. but when it comes to the next hot plastic toy, loose lips can sink a plastic toy ship. so all of these questions that came and the kind of facts that were discovered in the courtroom really bring a lot of pause to not just to the toy and entertainment industry, but how we battle and how we create
markets and how we create culture. and i'm happy to talk about, you know, a lot of the different aspects about the book, but one of the things that becomes very clear is that right now there's this moment of a lot of uncovering of corporation culture with the #metoo movement. and what i want to suggest to you is that a lot of these contracts, it's really two sides of the same coin. that we see a lot of attempts by concentrated markets to both silence the speech of insiders when they see wrong-doing, when they see misconduct whether it's sexual misconduct or other kind of misconduct, and they also have this mindset that they do own us or they do own me in the
sense that everything that's created can be owned. all ideas with, sort of this idea of intellectual property expanded and expanded to infinity. so as i said, the cinematic quality of the case really drew me to tell this story which is just, had to be told. and i've been very pleased that while i thought, you know, i actually when i was doing some of the interviews, i would ask the people that i interviewed, the insiders, the attorneys, the jurors, the judges that i sat down with my final question was so if this was a movie, who would play you? and now i really am feeling very pleased that a lot of the reviewers in the new yorker and
publishers weekly and "the wall street journal" are all or sortf talking about this cinematic quality of, you know, you start or a case and you don't know where it will lead you and the drama of a decade-long litigation is just kind of opens up as the poet says, it's the nest where the entire world meets. that's what "you don't own me" is for me. so thank you, and i'm happy to take any questions. [applause] >> so the most basic question, if i remember correctly -- ah. you can hear me. the cost of litigation was in the hundreds of millions, right?
>> yes. >> 400? >> 600. so 400 for mattel's legal fees and 200 for mga. >> so is it the legal industry feeding this frenzy, essentially, out of its own interest to generate this kind of -- >> yeah. well, that's a great question because, you know, the turn of events as one attorney that i interviewed who worked on this case said this is the greatest reversal of fortune that he's seen in, ever in a case where, you know, in one trial the, you know, one litigant wins ownership over a billion dollar industry or brand line, and then, you know, when there's a reversal of fortune, the other side gets hundreds of millions of dollars. ..
actual winners are really only the attorneys in the legal teams pick as you mention, have taken in understanding-- i actually think very problematic, amounts of especially when we are talking about a publicly held corporation, it's not clear it's justified. it's not clear that when executives make the decision to litigate that it's a rational and right decision. there have been-- insiders that talk about how there is kind of that repeat representation by
law firms that kind of push to the limits this idea of litigation and take the trial cases that are losing cases and i described a lot of these cases where mattel took artists to trial for like the barbie song. i don't want to really think on c-span, but you know, i made barbie girl in a barbie world, a danish band. that actually was another case where mattel decided they are using the word barbie and we are going to litigate against them and time again with that case and other cases where an artist -- tom forsyte put barbie in a blender and all kinds of positions and photographed her. they sued him.
time again, actually, the ninth circuit court of appeals in california said no, you can't control culture in that way and that's not what social property is about there is this doctrine of the theory use, you know a common place where we share culture and not allow one company to control the images of their icon, but what is kind of interesting is that they didn't stop. they continued to litigate and i do think that part of it is misguided legal advice where again the loser and winners become more complicated when their are the legal teams that have their own interests. >> sounds like from what you said in addition to the
financial cost there was quite a personal cost as well. can you see a little more about carter and how he survived these 10 years? >> so, carter really didn't survive in the industry at all. one of the things that's important to understand is that when we have a culture of very very broad contracts that curtailed the ability of movement of people created by people in an industry it's not only that it chills the likelihood of them actually moving, but when they actually decide to move its much more likely they will move to another big competitor that can actually protect them, in-- indemnify them, so it's pattern in that way that it oppresses talent mobility, but also very much curtails new entry and where he wouldn't go at it alone, so
indeed in this case he really kind of disappeared from the scene. he wants to remain anonymous partly because he's afraid and that's why the whole litigation starts a couple years after its such a smashing hit. there is a anonymous letter that arise from hong kong. interesting side story that suddenly tells mattel, you know that employee carter bryant that you used to have he's actually the crater, so he's dragged into court when he really doesn't have a lot of interest anymore in the case. they sue him and nga, he settled for the trial starts and gives up all of his millions. he loses and moves away from the toy industry, moves away from los angeles, but he is still in the first trial sort of is trying to explain how he was
within his rights, how he was inspired when he was away in missouri when he saw school girls coming out and saw that they are so different than the cold, icy, white never changing 50s barbie and he has the story about the weekends and nights in all of that, but you see him so difference was that of the carter bryant in the first trial and carter bryant in the second trial. he doesn't want to sit through weeks and weeks of testimony and really basically he is dragged into the court. he has no interest anymore. keys and interest and he's dragged into the court by court order because he has basically disappeared and he-- you see him not responding, responding very very short answers and as he saw when i mentioned reading the beginning he has health issues
with all of this and there is also, you will have to read the book for all of these interesting details, but there's also a lot of problematic decisions that were made about what he could testify about in the first trial. he is questioned really about his sexuality, about finding pornography in his computer and the second judge actually said i can't believe all of this was actually part of the first testimony and so the second to judge actually put order into some of that, but carter bryant is i think an extremist example of how much this has mattered personally to people, but actually you see all of the actors, so the mattel executive
basically ousted from mattel after years of litigation. bob beckert leaves the toy industry and then isaac, the colorful very energetic businessman who takes on mattel told me when i first sat with him in the boardroom in his boardroom he told me, my wife always told me i have to be completely crazy not to settle with these people and be dragged into court for years and when he finally wins and some induration of the trial he is weeping and he says, you know i missed a lot of the childhood of my son and again, it sort of that question of how much of this are we when we spend so much of our creative energies and actually innovative and developing better products
whether it's intact-- you can take the stories to all industries. i have been writing about apple versus samsung and others, so you kind of see that dynamic of how like was said many years ago , we turned every issue into a legal issue and we are diverting a lot of resources from what we really need. >> i love the way you celebrate disruption and i just wondered in doing the research of this particular set of cases and stories what was added to your idea of disruption in the paradigm of disruption. >> and disruption most of the time is really celebrated definitely where i come from now in california, silicon valley.
disruption both of business models, of technology, of industry but even legal destruction is celebrated and kind of going between the lines and testing new methods. i think that that this story, like i said the cannibalization worries of concentrated market is exactly like economists predict. as was said, if we have a company that has such a big market share, they don't have incentives to instruct their own products. you will see the same exact market or product offering methodologies just staying in power for so many years because there's really no incentive to
compete with your own success and that's why i think one of the most important things that we can do in zero these industries is to make sure we have competition, we don't have to concentrated of markets and we have new entry, as i said, not just pattern it with two conglomerates that a lien and, but also individuals and smaller newer entrepreneur's. i think there's also disruption that sometimes can be very problematic when we are trying to push the lines into on a focal behavior and we should make sure that we are drawing the right lines in these scenarios because as i mentioned when dynamic you can see come to life in the book is how their is a mindset that you control
resources including human resources they are going to be a lot of ways to sort of find the next loophole. like i mean people kind of have this understanding of the tax system in now, you close one policy and by some way of evasion or some practice you don't want, so something else pops up. it sort of shows the dynamic between what can be done by contrast, by using legal tools, what then cannot be done when we pronounce that and enforcement through lawmakers, through legislation or the courtroom and then how sort of companies use their creativity maybe to destruct, but maybe not the most productive ways, but in ways we
question. [inaudible] >> information about these companies, i mean, i assume they would be very protective over information? >> great question. for me it was a full challenge, exposé about our corporate cultures and insider play and i sort of take play very seriously in this book. i was very fortunate that this epic battle plays itself out over decades of litigation in the public courtroom, so the first step was really to read thousands and thousands of the pages of transcripts and testimonies and a lot of
internal memos that were presented in discovery that for sure companies were resistant to not happy that they came out, but that they were under those settings and requirements in the court, but then the next step for me really when i thought i knew everything i could know from all of the documents was really to start talking to the insiders and as you suggested the question it wasn't without resistance, so turns out that attorneys are very happy to talk they were the first, you know gatekeepers and of the first people that were kind of opening their thoughts to me and i interviewed attorneys on both sides and got a lot of kind of the back story of the dynamics
and why they chose the different strategies they chose and how they view to the litigants. in classic life imitates art's, the executives on each aside really almost and i write about this in the book, to me they felt like they were emulating the dolls they were selling and marketing an image controlling, so we the kind of sassy, bratty immigrants june it-- jewish iranian entrepreneur that actually needs the first bratz doll after his daughter jasmine. it's very open to talking and he invites me into his company wants to tell me his david versus goliath story and his rags to riches story and his opinion about all of these
people that he's been battling, so for example he's passionate about the choice he makes and he brings his kids into the courtroom and he brings them into the products he creates and he says bob beckert, whose counterpart, ceo of mattel at the time, said he comes from cheese because he was the ceo of craft before that. he knows nothing about toys and he repeats that an kind of shows evidence about that. the ceo people like bob eckert were much kind of colder, like an icy front quite ended when to engage up in court it was clear. of the judge actually had to tell bob eckert that he had to sit in court and he was not happy about that at all. there's a lot of anecdotes about that in the book, but i did
manage-- while i got it e-mail very polite but short e-mail from eckert saying i no longer work for mattel and i do not give any comments about the company. i did manage to talk to some insiders on both sides in the toy industry and one of the really most terrific things that i got to have like inside and an insight from was the conversations that i had with jurors, which was great to get their perspective of how they saw all of these actors battling it out, but really you can stop about-- talk about legal doctrine in the statute and all of that, but really with the cared about was the fairness, the passion of the two sides and the narrative, who control the story with a believed and also i
sat down with the very controversial then judge kaczynski. judge alex kozinski who actually just after the book was published, he was involved in allegations against him about sexual misconduct and the way he treated his clerks and he resigned from the ninth circuit court of appeals whereas as i describe in the book his assent to the chief judge of the ninth circuit court of appeals and how important his jurisprudence in copyright law has been. i was fortunate to sit down with him and ask him about his many views on the case and his decisions in these cases and several cases on mattel. i will tell you one of the anecdotes that i describe in the book and the new yorker, the review that just came out this week picks up on, i thought--
sat down with kaczynski and told him i was raised by a mother is a psychology professor who taught me that barbie sends a wrong image or wrong message about the body images of young girls and he looked at me kind of puzzled and said, i don't see anything wrong except when i lift up her skirt i see nothing. so, you can actually see again some of his personality coming out and i describe, again, his history, his previous before the scandal that kind of made him resign, his previous investigation by the court at the committee about having some pornography on a private server, so there's a lot there that i
try to convey by both interviews and everything i could get a hold of. >> had in the case and? >> well, i'm not going to give spoilers because you have to read the book and in truth it's basically never-ending because there was a reversal of fortune. there was a victory on one side and the tranny other side, but the two sides have actually said we aren't giving up and we will move to state courts and i mentioned there is claims about price-fixing in antitrust violation tickets-- economic sp is nausea and there was questioning on the stand that mattel executives why they didn't recall quick enough point products when-- that were
produced in china when they presented health risks and toxins, you know risks that were really causing death of children, so again it became bigger bigger, but i can tell you that you-- "you don't own me" ends in a victory that with judge kaczynski's guidance it remanded to a new trial in with i think a judge that sees the full picture and guides the new jury in a kind of structured way suddenly this new court says no, you can't just claim an entire doll empire just because it's a former employee and we should give weekends and nights to employees and we should be very cautious about happy knees really really long assignment
causes that say anything you conceive of even if it's the most abstract idea, even if it's not copyrightable, whether patent a bowl or not we should have these limits because we have to make sure that we have a vibrant public domain, that we have culture that everyone can remix, that every competitor can compete on equal playing and in that sense i think the case is a real victory to creating more icons rather than less, more speech rather than less and more creativity rather than less. >> you were talking about this case in terms of competition. audi you see the connection between intellectual property of and the employee employer space and antitrust because they both
feel somehow with competition? >> i think that's a good question, something that not only attorneys should be worried about, but public in general. we focus a lot about on drying the right lines in copyright law in trademark law, but really i think we have become very very sort of body into the idea that intellectual property is just property and people really own things that are not naturally owned. we have to remember that we-- so , i teach intellectual property and historically and historically intellectual property was a field of antitrust law. it creates a a natural monopoly of our knowledge, information, the ability to create, remix, build upon the shoulders of
giants to create in the arts and sciences. a lot of this we have forgotten in some of these very visible battles i mentioned, apple versus samsung and many other google books, battle over scanning all books. we have to remember that intellectual property has limits and therefore we also have to understand that even when it's not litigated or understood under the statutes that sort of are the pillars of intellectual property when we are talking about employment relationships, contract relationships and there's those kind of limits that we have to understand there is a purpose in our policies for all of these laws and if they are subverting the very purposes
the constitution talks about witches progress in arts and sciences and they are impeding arts and sciences that's where they are operating in that antitrust field of monopolizing and preventing the next step. >> one more question. is there any trend that you see? is this a once-in-a-lifetime case because of the tremendous amounts of money? >> i don't think that this-- that we are becoming less litigious. i think that we are becoming more concentrated as markets and that we have a lot of litigation by big competitors and especially again in these fields of trade secrecy, a spin on the espionage-- economic espionage
and an increase in litigious this. i think a lot of resources are spent on it, but i also think that we are not seeing when we look at sort of the number of cases you said is this a once-in-a-lifetime case, so this is a very special case because we had defendants who are willing to take it to the end. what i want to warn is that you see kind of these personalities that are really strong and you can see why there is now a victory against goliath, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. there are so me decisions along the way by people who are silent , who are looking at these trends or maybe we see a cease
and desist letter that you will never actually see or sign a contract of that they will never actually test in court, so below this kind of tip of the hat iceberg there is this huge amount of sort of use of the threat of litigation to pattern what we do what we can do. again, it should really resonate with what we see now with the entertainment industry and toy industry. i wrote about in southern california and to some in other where just now, we uncover a lot of practices that were silenced for years and everyone knew about, but a lot of people were worried about speaking out. there is a much bigger footprint of the litigation practices on all of us who might never become litigants, but this case will matter to what we do, can do,
>> you are watching the tv on c-span2. television for serious readers. here is our prime. first up tonight, military historian max booth examines the impact cia officer edward lansdale had on american foreign policy and counterinsurgency tactics during the vietnam war and in later military efforts. he's in conversation with retired general david petri as. at 7:30 p.m. bora talks about us immigration policy and profile several daca recipients then at 8:30 p.m. harvard professor steve levitsky and daniel examine the causes that lead to breakdowns in democracies around the world. next, on book tvs afterwards program at 10:00 p.m. black lies matter cofounder discusses her
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on