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.