[bruce511]

This is an interesting counter-example to the idea that IP rights should be abandoned.

The IP in question here would be copyright (as mentioned in the article) and these days likely trademark as well.

He did have a copyright,but this was deemed invalid. Copies flooded the market.

Now,of course,all (most) toys have a limited shelf life. But the clones are just in it for the money,the developer is discouraged and retreats. Further development is abandoned.

With software there are advantages to being open, or closed, but in both cases copyright and trademarks serve to protect the project. Obviously clones, copies,fakes and forks exist,but trademarks and licensing serve to protect the original authors intentions, and the author has choices in what protection they want.

Patents on software though such. I can't defend those.

[nitwit005]

I doubt a copyright would have helped all that much. You can't copyright the idea of a toy troll in general. There was a prior lawsuit over a toy that was very similar to Barbie. They resolved it by changing her face to be a bit different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindy

The trademark does seem to matter, so long as you can convince people they should buy your brand.