Mattel $100 million in damages. After an appeal, in 2009 a federal judge upheld the verdict and ruled that the Bratz doll is Mattel property and that MGA could sell the doll only until the end of 2009. In 2010 the companies were locked in a bitter dispute: Mattel wanted the rights to produce and sell the Bratz doll line, but MGA's founder was still trying to protect the profits made from the Bratz dolls' success. Meanwhile stores stopped selling the Bratz doll, Mattel revitalized its line of Barbie dolls, and its CEO exultantly declared that "Barbie is back" as increased doll sales helped raise the company's profits by 86% in the spring of 2010.86 Imagine then, how Mattel's managers reacted to the decision of the federal appeals court in July 2010 when it threw out the previous court decision and ruled that MGA Entertainment did have the right to make and sell the Bratz doll because their looks and image were not subject to existing copyright law! The rights to the Bratz doll were given back to MGA, and MGA is currently suing Mattel for major damages that have cost it hundreds of millions in profits. 2. Discussion Questions 1. Why were Mattel's managers so slow to change their decision making about the design of the Barbie doll over time? What kinds of cognitive errors may have contributed to this? What kinds of factors affected the way managers at both Mattel and MGA made their decisions over time during their battle over control for the Bratz dolls? CASE 4: POLITICS AT WALT DISNEY In the early 2000s, Walt Disney CEO Michael Eisner came under increasing criticism for the company's falling performance and for the way that he had centralized decision making so that all important decisions affecting the company had to have his approval. He began to lose the support of the board of directors, especially of Roy Disney, who as a member of the founding family commanded a great deal of support. However, the majority of Disney's board of directors had been handpicked by Eisner, and he was able to control the agenda until the company began to incur major losses in the mid 2000s. Poor performance weakened Eisner's position, but so did his personal relationship with Steve Jobs, who was the CEO and major owner of Pixar, the company that had made most of Disney's recent blockbuster movies such as Toy Story, Cars, and so on. After Jobs threatened to find a new distributor for Pixar's movies when its contract with Disney expired in 2007 because of the personal antagonism between himself and Eisner, Disney's board decided to act. Eisner was encouraged to become chair of Disney and to allow his handpicked successor, Bob Iger, assume control of the company as its CEO. Iger owed his rapid rise at Disney to his personal relationship with Eisner, who had been his mentor and loyal follower. Iger had always suggested new ways to improve Disney's performance but had never confronted Eisner-always a dangerous thing to do if a manager wants to become the next CEO! Once Iger became CEO in 2006, pressure was applied to Eisner, who soon decided to resign as Disney's chair; then Iger negotiated the purchase of Pixar by Disney that resulted in Steve Jobs becoming its biggest stockholder. Disney was still performing poorly, but now that Iger was in total control and no longer under the influence of Michael Eisner, he adopted a plan to change the way Disney operated. As COO of Disney under CEO Michael Eisner, Iger recognized that Disney was plagued by slow decision making that had led to many mistakes in putting its new 5