Christmas came early for moms this year, said Angela Natividad in AdRants. A judge ordered the maker of Bratz dolls—"Barbie's slutty, slummin' store-aisle rival"—to pull the toys out of stores after the holiday season, saying the dolls' designs belonged to Barbie-maker Mattel. The Bratz line has "alienated moms," so this victory for the relatively tame Barbie should thrill parents who have banned the "juicy-lipped" Bratz from the homes.

"Whomph," said recording artist David Byrne on his Web site, "the competition is eliminated in one fell swoop." The "slutty 'ethnic'" Bratz dolls were on fire and threatening to "crowd out the tall white chick" before the law stepped in. "Do we have a metaphor for immigration attitudes (and policies) here or what?"

How'd all this happen? asked Michele Johansen and Lexie Tigre in The toymaker who created Bratz worked for Mattel when he designed the dolls, but quit and sold them to MGA Entertainment. The judge has essentially said that Mattel is the rightful owner. But what does this really mean for doll lovers? "Not much, since both Barbie and Bratz will be on the shelf until all the lawsuits and appeals are resolved."

It's in the interest of both companies to work out a deal, said Gina Keating and Aarthi Sivaraman in Reuters. If MGA stakes its future on its appeal—instead of agreeing to pay royalties to Mattel—it could lose everything. And Mattel should get a piece of the action while it can—because, in this economy, there's no guarantee that an appeals court will uphold a ruling that would kill MGA's $1 billion-plus business and "throw hundreds of workers out of jobs."