Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

High End Sex Dolls Case

Rate this topic


intellectualammo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Before I get into this, I would like this topic to stay on topic, and not about the morality of love dolls in general, etc.

I have been looking at a court case that involved two High End Sex Doll manufacturers. One is Lovable Dolls, the other RealDoll. Matthew Krivicke was the former CEO of RealDoll, but started to make his own dolls and company, and this is where I think the problem lies. And I was wondering what such a court case would look like in a free market, as in a laissez-faire capitalist one, that upholds and protects individual rights. Right now, Lovable Dolls no longer exists as a doll company, it was shut down due to court rulings, and they are in the hole, $400,000, but no word so far on an appeal. In such a society, and I am not saying this is the case with this case, since I do not know all the specifics, court transcpripts would cost many thousands to obtain, if someone was employed at a doll compnay, and they wanted to start their own company, not necessarily even making them or the company while still employed but just the thought of starting one, how would that be legally wrong, would it be in such a society? RealDoll's lawyer mentions free enterprise in a statement in thsi article, so I was wondering what it really would look like in such a free market. I would think, that since the dolls do not look the same as the RealDolls, not in their necks, hands, feet, skeleton, heads, etc that it is not copying them in part or in whole, that there is no violation of anyone's rights here, so what would you guys think such an outcome might be like in such a society?

http://www.10news.com/news/26137159/detail.html

McMullen said several years ago, after Krivicke was laid off, Krivicke ripped him off by starting his own company and producing two dolls. One of those dolls included the "Yvette" doll, which Krivicke began creating while working for Real Dolls.

"It's like music and copyright infringement.... while he was working for me, those models were my property," said McMullen.

A jury agreed and a judge ruled that Krivicke has to pay more than $400,000 and will have to return the molds and all of his Yvette dolls.

The point is, even if he was laid off/still with them, how is it wrong to start your own doll line/company or just the thought of it? Unless there is some kind of agreement upon working for RD, but I have not heard of such an agreement. So say that there isn't. What would the outcome possibly look like in such a society? I need some help tryign to figure that out because I am engaged in a discussion about it, and am unsure if I am as right as I think I am in this. It of course would have to be proven that he in fact did start creating the dolls while still employed, but say that that is true. What would you think might be an outcome in said society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, even if he was laid off/still with them, how is it wrong to start your own doll line/company or just the thought of it? Unless there is some kind of agreement upon working for RD, but I have not heard of such an agreement. So say that there isn't. What would the outcome possibly look like in such a society? I need some help tryign to figure that out because I am engaged in a discussion about it, and am unsure if I am as right as I think I am in this. It of course would have to be proven that he in fact did start creating the dolls while still employed, but say that that is true. What would you think might be an outcome in said society?

Actually it is very common in R&D work. Something along the lines of a no-compete. Without all the details of the case it is safe to say since the company won that something of the sort was in effect.

Lets look at the other side- if an employer couldn't sue for an employee putting out a competing producting shortly after being laid off. Odds are that the person had the opportunity to use time, materials and resources belonging to the company- only to turn around and create a product in direct competetion with the company that was paying him all along.

As to what the outcome would be in a free market society that is very simple- the judge would simply rule according to the contract that was signed. If there was no contract signed one way or the other the case would most likely be thrown out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to what the outcome would be in a free market society that is very simple- the judge would simply rule according to the contract that was signed. If there was no contract signed one way or the other the case would most likely be thrown out.

Thank you for such a quick reply. That's what I was thinking would happen - there'd be no case.

Yes the contract thing, that is the only thing I just thought of that might be problematic for them, if such a contract was in fact signed. I'm actually on a forum discussing this elsewhere in the doll community of which I am a member of, and what happened has caused lots of trouble between members, some definately with me, kind of divided the community some, reminds me of the split in the O'world, it's put people in two camps/sides, if you will.

I came on, and sent a PM to Old Toad, but I imagine him being busy, and has nto read the PM, so I thought I would post this thread, for all to comment freely on. Things are being said here and there on that forum, but I can only pull the general from it, not specifics, or rely on any secondhand info, so it 's a little hard to present something here for people to make judgements upon.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing of note (I've done some R&D in a different field) the more oscure the product the tighter the no compete is likely to be and the more enforcible.

If for example I do R&D for a food publication they can write some restrictions into the scope of the contract saying I cannot do things that compete directly with the project I took part in for XX amount of time. What a judge would be unlikely to enforce though is a contract sayiong I amy never again be involved in the food industry again.

There are some interesting cases going on now with ex-emplyees of food R&D companies btw.. when places have proprietary methods and secret recipes the contracts tend to be more waterproof (on the employer's part). Secret recipe for Coca-Cola and all that jazz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing of note (I've done some R&D in a different field) the more oscure the product the tighter the no compete is likely to be and the more enforcible.

I just would have to find out about a contract, if any such no compete was in it, and of course proof that whatever alledgedly happened while employed/laid off or whatever. I do not think there is a contract with any such agreement in it, because I have not heard of it as of yet, and surely that would have been mentioned. In our society, though, even if you don't have such a contract, could one still get into trouble? This may be the case here, with how laws might be. I'm just not familiar with the way laws are now, and what they'd be like in the society Mr. Purdy had brought up. This is why I hit up Old Toad with a PM first, I thought he'd know a hell of a lot more about it then me! :)

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is virtually a certainty that before the old employer started an actual suit, they sent the offender a "cease and desist" letter. So it's not like he was unaware of the risk of continued competition with his old company. A lawyer was almost certainly consulted (if not, then the guy's an idiot). If competant, the lawyer warned the guy that he could lose a lot by continuing. If the guy chose to continue, the loss is one he knew he risked. Now, if the lawyer said it's not a prob, the guy should sue the lawyer for malpractice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is virtually a certainty that before the old employer started an actual suit, they sent the offender a "cease and desist" letter.

Perhaps. I do know that LD was suing RD first, RD countersued and won.

So it's not like he was unaware of the risk of continued competition with his old company.

It's one of the top, if no tthe top, American competitors in the high end sex doll for RD. Matthew's talent has been recognized time and time again, not only when working for RD, but for other projects as well. Even though 400k in the hole, he's with a new company that just started up, I do not know who owns this one yet, it hasn't been reveled to us, perhaps sometime in January, but it featured dolls by him, Sinthetics, is the name.

A lawyer was almost certainly consulted (if not, then the guy's an idiot). If competant, the lawyer warned the guy that he could lose a lot by continuing. If the guy chose to continue, the loss is one he knew he risked. Now, if the lawyer said it's not a prob, the guy should sue the lawyer for malpractice.

Never heard of suing a lawyer for malpractice, interesting. But I think he thought it was a sure thing, because of starting the company after he'd been laid off or whatever from RD(Abyss Creations), but the jury ruled otherwise. I think it had something more to do with just thinking or planning another company, but not actually starting starting it, something like that. It's some technicality or something like that. I'd love to read the transcipts for the evidence and presentation on both sides, but unable to afford the amount of money someone said that they were. Although, I wonder if a bunch of us doll owners and admirers could put our money together, I should start a poll see how much people are willing to put together to get the trascripts. I have no idea why they cost so damn much.

I just need to find out about the CEO contract etc. and what it entailed, and then after that, establish that he did in fact start a company while still employed at Abyss. It has been said that the name Lovable Dolls was already a registered domain name while at Abyss, but it was his girlfriends BJD((custom) ball jointed dolls) that she was going to start up. I guess they just used that named for the high end ones instead, but not initially. Maybe the jury thought otherwise because of appearances, etc. Again, I'm just speculating a bit, but I can dig deeper, and will.

Old Toad did contact me, and is going to take a look at things if he has time. Being an attorney, and with NTOS and all, I am very fortunate enough to have him try to find time to do so. He's truly a nice guy to me, helped me with another legal matter before on the forum about an article posted on a different site, and best of all, he doesn't charge me! ;)

Since we can't talk politics on another forum, I might tell the people there that there is a place that we can, here on this forum, if they are interested. But I hesitate to do that, since our discussions there are locked and quarentined a lot, so I don't know if I want to invite all that is invovled in such things, here.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The correct answers here need no special amendments. This sex dolls case just a single example of something worked out long ago. Engineers and scientists and others have long been parties to such non-compete/non-disclose contracts. That said, some courts (Minneapolis federal district court, I believe) did state that a workman has a right to practice his craft and such agreements were intended to limit only special employees, not all employees as a general condition.

I believe that this ruling is flawed, but it does speak to the problem: what can be limited?

Generally, having followed this with casual interest since 1978 myself, the courts consider it more consequential for the VP of Marketing to take the customer list, than for an engineer to take his knowledge. We know that Silicon Valley was created with the "Fairchildren" abandoned Shockley and Fairchild and from them came more spin-offs and ever more. It is hard to imagine that there were not such contracts in place. But it did little good. An improvement, an innovation, a method not employed earlier, they make it a new thing. And so very few contract suits were successful.

You are really asking two questions: what is US law today; and what would objective law look like. The second is harder to answer and begs a different topic.

BTW, I did not know about the new generation of sex dolls from Sinthetics. I'm impressed. Can they talk? I worked in robotics for two years, and let me tell you... (well, not now...)

Edited by Hermes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are really asking two questions: what is US law today; and what would objective law look like. The second is harder to answer and begs a different topic.

I'd like to address both in this thread as I have been, easier to keep everything together, at least at this point.

BTW, I did not know about the new generation of sex dolls from Sinthetics. I'm impressed. Can they talk? I worked in robotics for two years, and let me tell you... (well, not now...)

No, they can't talk. But as far as gynoids/andriods go, lots of development in Japan on this. I can provide links to youtubes and other such things, later on. There are many different manufacturers of high end sex dolls, and mid-range ones, too - it's not just "blow-up" dolls for sex/companionship anymore. In the doll community we sometimes refer to them as "air girls" :) Dolls are getting more and more detailed, so life-like, all they need is to combine the robotics end of it. Here are some more examples of high end dolls made by American, Russian, Japanese manufacturers.

American: RealDoll, Boy Toy Dolls, Sinthetics, Ruby13, Private Island Beauties, et al.

Anatomical Dolls (Russian)

Japanese: Make Pure, Orient Industies Candy Girls, Honey Dolls, et al.

But back on track, I'm going to have to look more into this contract thing, to get things moving here.

Oh, I forgot to thank you for taking the time to look at this thread and make a response. I appreciate it. Anything that might help in my understanding in any of this is most welcome, which is the point of this thread. I just don't have enough intellectual ammo and so I came to a place that I knew could possibly help me out some. :)

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to Google, I use www.Exalead.com/search and Bing but also Ask and Yahoo. In every case, I searched on employment contract law non-compete non-disclose.

Exalead/search was the least useful. (It is a bit unusual as search engine.) Bing brought up a lot of lawyer advice websites. As you might expect, Google did the best over all job.

Not surprisingly, the Wikipedia article was a good introduction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Non-compete_clause. But note this under the Discussion tab:

Misleading statement"The extent to which non-compete clauses are legally allowed varies per jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions, such as the state of California in the US, invalidate non-compete-clauses for all but equity stakeholders in businesses.[1]"

That's inaccurate - it invalidates no-compete-clauses for all but *partners* and *equity stakeholders* that are *selling* their *equity*. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.57.217 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Via Google, I found this article on a lawyer advice website called HG.org: As with all contracts, restrictive covenants require an exchange of consideration to be enforceable. The law defines consideration as a "bargained-for exchange between the parties," in other words, something each side wants and promises to give to the other side. This is why restrictive covenants should be signed at the beginning of the employment relationship: There is no consideration when the employer promises the employee something he is already giving him (a job and salary). So NDAs signed mid-employment should be bought for something extra, like a bonus or a promotion, to be enforceable.

As you can see, there is a lot to this and much depends on the State of the Union with competent jurisdiction because amid the free advice is the assertion that claims across states are not enforceable. Basically, if you sign a non-compete in Massachusetts (strong law) and go to California to start a competing business, your employer has no claim. But, I am not a lawyer, and if I were, I would not give advice free online. (A thousand years ago, I went to my mother's lawyer for help, and he said that a bright kid like me could read the books and figure it out. So, I did. Since then, with more to lose, my counselors have warned me against "practicing hornbook law.")

What research have you done so far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I was wondering what such a court case would look like in a free market, as in a laissez-faire capitalist one, that upholds and protects individual rights.

I hate rationalist utopia arguments. Stuart K. Hayashi wrote what I consider a classic work, "The Argument from Arbitrary Metaphysics." You can find it on Objectivist Living here and Rebirth of Reason here.

We can review real cases and evaluate the extent to which they did, or did not, enact objective law. That said, realize that for Ayn Rand, objective law was written down for all to know, not subject to whimsy and interpretation, so that even bad laws, if clearly stated and uniformly applied would be objective. I think that you are looking for something else. You might consider "Quentin Daniels, Dagny Taggart, and the Motor." He did not want to take her money unless he was successful and she did not ask for a Non-Compete Non-Disclose Contract. That speaks to Rand's assumption that there are no conflicts of interest among rational people. In the real world, I would point to Massachusetts with MIT and Harvard and strict Non-compete Contracts and California with Silicon Valley and nearly no such laws. Both had high tech computer hacking cultures in the 1960s, but California clearly went lightyears beyond Massachusetts in the products created by the entrpreneurs there. In this TED Talk, Johanna Blakley demonstrates with dollars that the lack of intellectual property in fashions makes the fashion industry orders of magnitude more profitable than printing and publishing. (Larry Lessig argues for Remix on TED here.) I am not arguing against intellectual property rights in an absolute way, but suggesting that objective law for IP would be more like California and less like Massachusetts.

Edited by Hermes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

What research have you done so far?

In threads on two other forums, people invovled in the case and whatnot posted info about the case, and talked about lawsa and things, and recently money was being raised in order to get the transcripts made from the case which their cost is well over $6,000. Trouble happened and recently the fund drive was called off on one side, and someone is going to try to do it on their own like they were before the pledge drive thing between the two "rival" forums, I guess I could call it, started. Couldn't get along enough to do it. Anyways, I was holding out for the transcripts, but right now, I am not going to read them or participate any further, because of what's been happening in regards to me in being objective in this and other relational issues, people adding me on their foe list for said relational matters, like the talented Stacy Leigh for one, who does like all the photography for RealDoll and Boy Toy sites it seems, she's a professional photographer, but I wasn't on that forum to make friends, but certainly not on there to have people consider me a foe of all things!! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...