Jump to content



Photo

Opera sues designer for leaking trade secrets

web opera mozilla junior hansen

  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#16 PreKe

PreKe

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: 12-December 09

Posted 30 April 2013 - 16:54

Opera trying to stifle competition and the open web yet again, as if selling out the open web in favour of making cheap Webkit frontends wasn't bad enough.


Ok, so protecting your trade secrets from being stolen by your competitors stifles competition? Interesting claim. Care to explain how? Do you think stealing something someone spend time and money to create is justifiable, and that going after someone who does that isn't?

Also, how does suing someone who stole trade secrets and sold them to a competitor stifle the open web exactly?

What do you mean by "cheap Webkit frontends"? Is Safari a cheap Webkit frontend? Is Chrome a cheap Webkit frontend?

So basically he went to a competitor and used the ideas that Opera never would.


How do you know they weren't going to use them? Because some guy with a grudge made that claim?

And more importantly, what does it matter if they were going to use them or not? They were Opera's ideas, paid for with Opera's money. The ideas are theirs to do with as they please.
Stealing a company's trade secrets and selling them to another company is unacceptable no matter how you look at it.


#17 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • 3,041 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 30 April 2013 - 17:07

Ok, so protecting your trade secrets from being stolen by your competitors stifles competition? Interesting claim. Care to explain how? Do you think stealing something someone spend time and money to create is justifiable, and that going after someone who does that isn't?


And what trade secrets were stolen? As the article says Opera were more interested in keeping their existing bloated UIs so his advocacy was ignored, he went elsewhere and they listened. Advocating minimalism is not trade secrets, nor are someone's personal tastes in regards to UI design.

Also, how does suing someone who stole trade secrets and sold them to a competitor stifle the open web exactly?


It's obviously an attempt at creating a monopoly position by denying free access to basic concepts. Opera are legal trolls, where they fail to innovate they litigate.

What do you mean by "cheap Webkit frontends"? Is Safari a cheap Webkit frontend? Is Chrome a cheap Webkit frontend?


Yep.

Now a question for you PreKe, who is your current employer? Because strangely enough, you only ever seem to appear when Opera is mentioned. Anything to disclose? My shill senses are tingling.

#18 PreKe

PreKe

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: 12-December 09

Posted 30 April 2013 - 17:19

And what trade secrets were stolen? As the article says Opera were more interested in keeping their existing bloated UIs so his advocacy was ignored, he went elsewhere and they listened. Advocating minimalism is not trade secrets, nor are someone's personal tastes in regards to UI design.


Who said it had anything to do with minimalism? This was about one or more features in a Mozilla video where this very same guy was presenting stuff as Mozilla innovations when they had in fact been made at Opera.

It's obviously an attempt at creating a monopoly position by denying free access to basic concepts. Opera are legal trolls, where they fail to innovate they litigate.


What basic concepts are they denying anyone free access to, specifically?

How is Opera a legal troll if this is the only time they've sued anyone for stealing trade secrets? Also, do you think stealing trade secrets is OK?

#19 0sit0

0sit0

    Live and let live

  • 4,336 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 01

Posted 30 April 2013 - 17:28

Neobrowser FTW!

Posted Image


OMG I remember using this once years ago lol.

#20 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • 3,041 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 30 April 2013 - 17:32

Who said it had anything to do with minimalism?


Oh I don't know, the original article? Did you even bother to read it?

This was about one or more features in a Mozilla video where this very same guy was presenting stuff as Mozilla innovations when they had in fact been made at Opera.


And what features are these pray tell? What proof do you have these features, if they exist - belong to Opera?

What basic concepts are they denying anyone free access to, specifically?


Until such time as it's actually established that any features were stolen and those features are the property of Opera, rather than vague references to some video. It sounds very much like Opera are trying to lay claim to the very concept of minimalism itself.

How is Opera a legal troll if this is the only time they've sued anyone for stealing trade secrets? Also, do you think stealing trade secrets is OK?


Opera have always resorted to legal action to try and get their way when the quality (Or lack of) of their products has failed to. This is well known.

Now again, who is your employer PreKe? Do you work for Opera?

#21 PreKe

PreKe

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: 12-December 09

Posted 30 April 2013 - 17:40

Oh I don't know, the original article? Did you even bother to read it?


Or how about what the guy himself writes on his blog?

"in June 2012, a video is made public which shows me presenting a touch based browser prototype called Junior. This prototype has nothing to do with the lawsuit now filed by Opera"

Oops. Egg on face.

And what features are these pray tell? What proof do you have these features, if they exist - belong to Opera?


If they were made for Opera, they belong to Opera. If someone pays you to create something for them, it belongs to them. If this hadn't been the case, then anyone could just walk away with everything they ever did while working for a company.

Until such time as it's actually established that any features were stolen and those features are the property of Opera, rather than vague references to some video. It sounds very much like Opera are trying to lay claim to the very concept of minimalism itself.


The guy who was sued admits to working on some features while at Opera, and he brought them with him to Mozilla. He does not dispute this even on his own blog. What he disputes is that Opera has the right to features that they paid him for helping out with.

Opera have always resorted to legal action to try and get their way when the quality (Or lack of) of their products has failed to. This is well known.


Really? Could you mention a few examples of this?

Now again, who is your employer PreKe? Do you work for Opera?


No. Shouldn't you be focusing on trying to pick up the pieces of your destroyed arguments instead of trying to constantly attack me with insults and accusations?

#22 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • 3,041 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 30 April 2013 - 17:53

Or how about what the guy himself writes in his blog?

"in June 2012, a video is made public which shows me presenting a touch based browser prototype called Junior. This prototype has nothing to do with the lawsuit now filed by Opera"

This was about one or more features in a Mozilla video where this very same guy was presenting stuff as Mozilla innovations when they had in fact been made at Opera.


Oops. Egg on face.

If they were made for Opera, they belong to Opera. If someone pays you to create something for them, it belongs to them. If this hadn't been the case, then anyone could just walk away with everything they ever did while working for a company.


And yet you still don't have a single shred of proof. Oops. Egg on face.

The guy who was sued admits to working on some features while at Opera, and he brought them with him to Mozilla. He does not dispute this even on his own blog. What he disputes is that Opera has the right to features that they paid him for helping out with.


That's some nice malicious word twisting you have there, he said no such thing.

Really? Could you mention a few examples of this?


I could, but as you yourself aren't really interested in providing any proof for your points, neither shall I.

No. Shouldn't you be focusing on trying to pick up the pieces of your destroyed arguments instead of trying to constantly attack me with insults and accusations?


No, I'd much rather show you up for being the shill that you are. You clearly have some connection to Opera.

#23 PreKe

PreKe

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: 12-December 09

Posted 30 April 2013 - 18:07

Oops. Egg on face.


What are you talking about? You claimed this was about minimalism, but his blog says it was not about the minimalist browser but about at least one specific feature.

And yet you still don't have a single shred of proof. Oops. Egg on face.


Proof of what? That he got paid for doing something for Opera is not disputed. Nor is it disputed that when you get paid to do work, that work belongs to whoever paid you.

What exactly are you disputing here?

That's some nice malicious word twisting you have there, he said no such thing.


Yes he has:

"I inform the new CEO at the time, Lars Boilesen, that I will most likely pursue to contribute to an open source project like the Mozilla Firefox browser instead, since I think many of my original GB ideas and the direction I wanted to take the browser still has value, and I would like to see the ideas put into code."

In other words, he was talking about various ideas while Opera was paying him for coming up with ideas, but now he wanted to see those ideas put into code himself, most likely in the Firefox browser.

You know you are losing this argument because your attacks are becoming more and more desperate.

#24 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • 3,041 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 30 April 2013 - 18:41

What are you talking about? You claimed this was about minimalism, but his blog says it was not about the minimalist browser but about at least one specific feature.


If the prototype has nothing to do with the suit, that counts for both UI minimalism and feature-set. Make up your mind.

Proof of what? That he got paid for doing something for Opera is not disputed. Nor is it disputed that when you get paid to do work, that work belongs to whoever paid you.


Paid for what exactly? He didn't do any work, he advocated a certain style of minimalist UI (as per the article) and Opera weren't interested.

"I inform the new CEO at the time, Lars Boilesen, that I will most likely pursue to contribute to an open source project like the Mozilla Firefox browser instead, since I think many of my original GB ideas and the direction I wanted to take the browser still has value, and I would like to see the ideas put into code."

In other words, he was talking about various ideas while Opera was paying him for coming up with ideas, but now he wanted to see those ideas put into code himself, most likely in the Firefox browser.

I don't think this is about code. It's about technology presented in a video from Mozilla a while back. In fact, the guy who was sued even admits that he took stuff he made while on Opera's payroll to Mozilla.

So basically: Guy gets hired as a contractor. He gets paid to make some cool features. He then takes those features which he was paid for at Opera to a competitor, obviously breaching his contract with Opera and passing on trade secrets to the competitor.

Opera seems to be complaining that their competition got their hands on top secret stuff.


Another interesting change of position. First it was he actually made something, now it's down to ideas and vision?

You know you are losing this argument because your attacks are becoming more and more desperate.


Nah, your constantly changing position is a far bigger indicator.

#25 cigamrorrim

cigamrorrim

    Neowinian

  • 16 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 11

Posted 30 April 2013 - 19:07

Oh geez, Firefox and Opera look almost identical, who copied who here, or is Opera based off of Firefox now?


Actually, I -thought- that some of the code in Firefox is handmedown from Netscape. Atleast, that's where Mozilla mutated from. There is sort of a chain with web browsers. Some of coders who worked on Netscape were on the original Mosiac team. Mosiac is the web browser that microsoft purchased and it mutated into IE. I think Apple's Safari is a mutation from Firefox.

So, in essense, I think they've all borrowed from each other to some degree.

#26 PreKe

PreKe

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: 12-December 09

Posted 30 April 2013 - 19:26

If the prototype has nothing to do with the suit, that counts for both UI minimalism and feature-set. Make up your mind.


You aren't making sense. This is about one or more specific features, not about minimalism.

Paid for what exactly? He didn't do any work, he advocated a certain style of minimalist UI (as per the article) and Opera weren't interested.


You are reading a faulty article by The Register which gets things wrong. Read his own blog post instead. If he didn't do any work, why did they keep him around for up to a year?

Another interesting change of position. First it was he actually made something, now it's down to ideas and vision?


What are you talking about?

Nah, your constantly changing position is a far bigger indicator.


What changing position? I have consistently been talking about specific trade secrets, as in ideas, concepts or features that were developed while on Opera's payroll.

#27 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • 3,041 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 30 April 2013 - 19:39

You aren't making sense. This is about one or more specific features, not about minimalism.


It is not I who is making no sense, you made references to the video then dismissed it as non-relevant to the suit. Either the video is irrelevant or it is. Make up your mind.

You are reading a faulty article by The Register which gets things wrong. Read his own blog post instead. If he didn't do any work, why did they keep him around for up to a year?


Context. He obviously did work for Opera, however that work was not what Opera are trying to lay claim to. He pitched them an idea and they weren't interested.

What are you talking about?

What changing position? I have consistently been talking about specific trade secrets, as in ideas, concepts or features that were developed while on Opera's payroll.


Now you're being dishonest. Your quotes clearly illustrate you changed your position in regards to what had been "stolen" from an authored entity to a proposition. Either he has stolen commissioned work or he hasn't, and if Opera rejected his proposal then he obviously did not do the work in question for it to be stolen.

#28 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 22,243 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 30 April 2013 - 20:00

Context. He obviously did work for Opera, however that work was not what Opera are trying to lay claim to. He pitched them an idea and they weren't interested.


He developed a feature/technology/design while working there. Opera decided not to use it, AT THE TIME, but they still own it, they still paid for it.

as I said, if he didn't want them to own it, he shouldn't have developed it while there, and instead asked them first if this was something they where interested in. As it is, the whole lawsuit seems to indicate that opera was in fact plannign to use it, just not as fast as he wanted them to, and they might be usign it in one of their new mobile products they're making now.

either way, he made it while working at opera, getting paid by opera, all laws on this says it's theirs.

#29 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • 3,041 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 30 April 2013 - 20:24

He developed a feature/technology/design while working there. Opera decided not to use it, AT THE TIME, but they still own it, they still paid for it.

as I said, if he didn't want them to own it, he shouldn't have developed it while there, and instead asked them first if this was something they where interested in. As it is, the whole lawsuit seems to indicate that opera was in fact plannign to use it, just not as fast as he wanted them to, and they might be usign it in one of their new mobile products they're making now.

either way, he made it while working at opera, getting paid by opera, all laws on this says it's theirs.


To quote Hansen:

"These ideas of mine were never sold or transferred to Opera. I've always had an awareness of what is regarded as Opera's property and what is mine."


You keep vaguely claiming he developed something without actually being able to say what it is/was exactly. Was it a feature or a design? Was it even developed at all?

If there was actual work done then they have a case, but if it's just him having gone "hey you know what would be cool" then they don't have any rights. And since nobody has yet been able to say/prove what exactly it is that he allegedly stole, then it looks like the latter is what really happened.

#30 PreKe

PreKe

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: 12-December 09

Posted 30 April 2013 - 20:39

To quote Hansen:


So he took their money, but didn't actually produce anything for them? Is that what he's saying? Or is he saying that despite producing something while on Opera's payroll, those things he produced while hired and paid by Opera don't really belong to Opera?

If there was actual work done then they have a case


So they kept him on as a consultant for up to a year without him doing anything? You know how expensive consultants tend to be? So basically, Opera paid a whole lot of money and had nothing when their ways departed?

but if it's just him having gone "hey you know what would be cool" then they don't have any rights. And since nobody has yet been able to say/prove what exactly it is that he allegedly stole, then it looks like the latter is what really happened.


Argumentum ad ignorantiam. You don't know, therefore whatever you imagined is correct?

It is not I who is making no sense, you made references to the video then dismissed it as non-relevant to the suit. Either the video is irrelevant or it is. Make up your mind.


When did I claim that the video wasn't relevant? The video is allegedly what shows the functionality that was stolen. What isn't relevant is the part of the video that shows the minimalist browser because according to Hansen himself, that minimalist thing is not what this lawsuit is about.

Context. He obviously did work for Opera, however that work was not what Opera are trying to lay claim to. He pitched them an idea and they weren't interested.


It took him nearly a year to pitch an idea (according to his own blog, he was hired as a consultant in early 2009, and left in early 2010)? If they hired him to come up with ideas and he came up with ideas, then those ideas belong to Opera. Otherwise Opera paid him a lot of money (keeping a consultant on for a year can't be cheap) for nothing.

Now you're being dishonest. Your quotes clearly illustrate you changed your position in regards to what had been "stolen" from an authored entity to a proposition. Either he has stolen commissioned work or he hasn't, and if Opera rejected his proposal then he obviously did not do the work in question for it to be stolen.


How do the quotes illustrate that I changed my position? You need to be more specific than that. Obviously he was working on something while hired as a consultant, and that obviously belongs to Opera because they paid him to do it. But he doesn't think Opera owns what they paid him for for some reason. So he decided to steal that which now belonged to Opera, and sell it to Mozilla.