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?
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?
Since when did not doing any work under Opera in regards to the claimed stolen property translate into not doing any work at all?
Argumentum ad ignorantiam. You don't know, therefore whatever you imagined is correct?
You're just as ignorant in this case as everyone else, at least until such time as you can actually say what was stolen and what his job/contract entailed.
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.
If the prototype isn't relevant, then so are the features it contains.
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.
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.
Why do I have to be specific when you get to hide behind vague claims and semantics?
First you can't decide if it was a feature, idea or concept that was stolen, now his job seems to alternate between being a paid ideas-guy and "working on something".
Seems rather pointless to claim someone is guilty of theft when you can't even answer these questions.