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

#46 astropheed

astropheed

    astropheed

  • 1,929 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 11
  • Location: Sydney, AU

Posted 02 May 2013 - 06:14

As for the users, so you're saying opera users are like chrome and FF users then...


Oooohh, no he di'int!


#47 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,080 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 02 May 2013 - 09:32

Yes, it does matter. Because if that idea is not what was given to Opera then it's not their property. Simple as that.

There is nothing specific in pointing at something and then merely claiming it's proof of theft. Why do you have such a problem with understanding this simple concept?

Hypotheticals are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Are you trying to divert attention away from your destroyed arguments?


Sorry PreKe, but Athenar is completely right. I'm a software developer myself and generally, contracts are worded that only things developed on company time or using company equipment belong to the company. Anything else belongs to the person, even stuff you develop in your own time but when contracted to the company. Unless it was developed specifically for or transferred to the company, or developed using company resources, it belongs to the individual.

Of course, it's possible his specific contract is worded differently; but of all the ones I've seen, that's not how things are generally done in Europe.

#48 cork1958

cork1958

    Neowinian

  • 8,436 posts
  • Joined: 04-October 02

Posted 02 May 2013 - 10:08

OMG I remember using this once years ago lol.


Yeah,
I tried it once years ago also and almost IMMEDIATELY uninstalled that POS!! It's amazing how a story on one browser always brings some one in advertising (basically) another browser. WTF?!

Opera has every right to sue the contractor, whether right or wrong.

Attached Images

  • neo_browser_neo.jpg


#49 PreKe

PreKe

    Neowinian Senior

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

Posted 02 May 2013 - 19:59

Sorry PreKe, but Athenar is completely right. I'm a software developer myself and generally, contracts are worded that only things developed on company time or using company equipment belong to the company. Anything else belongs to the person, even stuff you develop in your own time but when contracted to the company. Unless it was developed specifically for or transferred to the company, or developed using company resources, it belongs to the individual.


What is he right about? We don't even know the details yet. How can you tell me he's right when not even half of the relevant facts are on the table yet?

However, your explanation doesn't make sense. If you create something on your spare time and never bring it to the company, sure. But if you are paid to bring something to the company and you bring something you already made, that should definitely belong to the company. They paid you for it, after all.

This was a consultancy gig, though, not a regular employment situation. Basically Opera the company hired Trond Hanson's company to do stuff for them. And if you get a task and you get money to complete it, Once the task has been completed and you get your money you can't just take back the work you did and keep the money. You just sold it to the company who gave you the task.

#50 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,080 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 02 May 2013 - 20:20

That only applies to stuff developed during the contract term, for the company. Stuff developed beforehand and vaguely discussed but never actually transferred to them doesn't count.

#51 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 22,202 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 02 May 2013 - 22:28

That only applies to stuff developed during the contract term, for the company. Stuff developed beforehand and vaguely discussed but never actually transferred to them doesn't count.


But we don't know how much work he did on it while working for them, since they're taking the step to sue him, it appears the answer is "quite a lot". companies don't go throwing around frivolous lawsuits in Norway, the chances of winning them without a great deal of proof in cases like this is to small here.

#52 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,080 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 02 May 2013 - 22:31

But we don't know how much work he did on it while working for them, since they're taking the step to sue him, it appears the answer is "quite a lot". companies don't go throwing around frivolous lawsuits in Norway, the chances of winning them without a great deal of proof in cases like this is to small here.


You're talking about the same company that went crying to the EU because their product couldn't compete against IE, and still can't despite them getting their way.

#53 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 02 May 2013 - 23:50

You're talking about the same company that went crying to the EU because their product couldn't compete against IE, and still can't despite them getting their way.


So you think they are crybabies too?

#54 PreKe

PreKe

    Neowinian Senior

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

Posted 05 May 2013 - 18:48

That only applies to stuff developed during the contract term, for the company. Stuff developed beforehand and vaguely discussed but never actually transferred to them doesn't count.


Wow, so you know the actual details? You know for a fact that they were merely "vaguely discussed" for a whole year?

Also, you didn't actually reply this: Your task is to produce something. You are paid for it. You produce something, as you are paid for. What you produce is then no longer your property because you took money to hand it over.

You're talking about the same company that went crying to the EU because their product couldn't compete against IE, and still can't despite them getting their way.


Actually, all Opera did was to report Microsoft's illegal activities to the EU. Companies like Google, Mozilla, Adobe, etc. all joined in, but people like you always fail to mention that. Wonder why...

Anyway, it seems like you think that other guy is right not because he is, but because you hat Opera and will support anyone who's bashing it.

Finally a question: What if it turns out that he did sell one or more trade secrets to Mozilla? Do you agree that the lawsuit would have merit if that were the case?

#55 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,080 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 05 May 2013 - 19:37

Wow, so you know the actual details? You know for a fact that they were merely "vaguely discussed" for a whole year?

Also, you didn't actually reply this: Your task is to produce something. You are paid for it. You produce something, as you are paid for. What you produce is then no longer your property because you took money to hand it over.


Now you're just being obtuse on purpose. You know full well I was speaking in general terms, I even specified as such as well as commenting that we don't know the specific terms of the contract.

Also, if I'm paid to produce something, and during the course of that I discuss several options with my employer, the only one that actually becomes theirs is the one that's actually developed and delivered. The possible solutions do not.

Actually, all Opera did was to report Microsoft's illegal activities to the EU. Companies like Google, Mozilla, Adobe, etc. all joined in, but people like you always fail to mention that. Wonder why...


Because Opera were the instigators. The others only joined in on the complaint after the fact and may never have actually bothered otherwise.

Anyway, it seems like you think that other guy is right not because he is, but because you hat Opera and will support anyone who's bashing it.


You know what they say about people who assume, right? Yeah, you know.

Finally a question: What if it turns out that he did sell one or more trade secrets to Mozilla? Do you agree that the lawsuit would have merit if that were the case?


You keep asking this question as if you think we support him getting away with a contract breach; this is not the case so stop trying to misrepresent what we're saying. IF he breached contract, then the lawsuit has merit. Based on the evidence available to the public, it does not.

#56 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 22,202 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 05 May 2013 - 19:43

You keep asking this question as if you think we support him getting away with a contract breach; this is not the case so stop trying to misrepresent what we're saying. IF he breached contract, then the lawsuit has merit. Based on the evidence available to the public, it does not.


The thing is, based on everything we know, it's just as much an IF that he didn't do something illegal. You guys however have no problems hypothesizing that way...

So if you're going to give you assessment of the case based on the assumption that he's innocent. Then you should also give you assessment on what you think should he be guilty. as both are equal possibilities with the information we have.

and no the information provided to the public doesn't indicate whether he did or not. They are in fact wholly inadequate to even give a hint either way. All we have at this point is Opera suing and giving a reason why, but that's al that is public at this point, and him writing a blog that says "I didn't do it".... well duh...

#57 PreKe

PreKe

    Neowinian Senior

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

Posted 05 May 2013 - 19:47

Yes, it does matter. Because if that idea is not what was given to Opera then it's not their property. Simple as that.


So you are saying that even though someone pays for something, they don't own it?

There is nothing specific in pointing at something and then merely claiming it's proof of theft. Why do you have such a problem with understanding this simple concept?


What are you talking about? The blog mentions at least one specific example of what he has been accused of stealing. I never said it was proof of theft. I said it was an example of what he was supposed to have stolen.

He mentions that as a specific thing Opera alleges that he illegally sold to Mozilla. Whether this is really the case is for the courts to decide.

Remember, you wrote: "There is nothing contained within the blog that is specific."

But the blog is being specific about a feature.

Hypotheticals are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Are you trying to divert attention away from your destroyed arguments?


Hypotheticals. Actually, it is highly relevant because it is one of the possible outcomes of the trial. I'm asking you about a specific outcome of the trial to see if you are benig consistent with your arguments, or if you are willing to say anything (including lying and contradictions) to bash Opera.

So again: What if it turns out that he did sell one or more trade secrets to Mozilla? Do you agree that the lawsuit would have merit if that were the case?

#58 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

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

Posted 05 May 2013 - 19:48

So if you're going to give you assessment of the case based on the assumption that he's innocent. Then you should also give you assessment on what you think should he be guilty. as both are equal possibilities with the information we have.


There is no such thing as assumption of innocence. All parties are innocent until otherwise proven guilty.

So you are saying that even though someone pays for something, they don't own it?


This has been already answered, re-read the thread.

What are you talking about? The blog mentions at least one specific example of what he has been accused of stealing. I never said it was proof of theft. I said it was an example of what he was supposed to have stolen.

He mentions that as a specific thing Opera alleges that he illegally sold to Mozilla. Whether this is really the case is for the courts to decide.

Remember, you wrote: "There is nothing contained within the blog that is specific."

But the blog is being specific about a feature.


This has been already answered, re-read the thread.

Hypotheticals. Actually, it is highly relevant because it is one of the possible outcomes of the trial. I'm asking you about a specific outcome of the trial to see if you are benig consistent with your arguments, or if you are willing to say anything (including lying and contradictions) to bash Opera.

So again: What if it turns out that he did sell one or more trade secrets to Mozilla? Do you agree that the lawsuit would have merit if that were the case?


No, it's both irrelevant and a weak attempt to derail the thread so you can avoid arguing the point. Stick to topic.

#59 PreKe

PreKe

    Neowinian Senior

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

Posted 05 May 2013 - 19:53

Now you're just being obtuse on purpose. You know full well I was speaking in general terms, I even specified as such as well as commenting that we don't know the specific terms of the contract.


In general terms? We know that the guy was a contractor for a year. Did they merely discuss stuff vaguely for a whole year? Sounds extremely unlikely.

Also, if I'm paid to produce something, and during the course of that I discuss several options with my employer, the only one that actually becomes theirs is the one that's actually developed and delivered. The possible solutions do not.


Actually, whatever you work on for the company while paid by the company belongs to the company. If you don't want the company to own it, you don't work on it when you're taking their money.

Because Opera were the instigators. The others only joined in on the complaint after the fact and may never have actually bothered otherwise.


I already explained that all Opera did was to report criminal activity, but I realize now that some of you people actually support that stuff. As long as Opera is the victim, of course.

You keep asking this question as if you think we support him getting away with a contract breach; this is not the case so stop trying to misrepresent what we're saying. IF he breached contract, then the lawsuit has merit. Based on the evidence available to the public, it does not.


No, I keep asking the question to see if your arguments are honest. Now, if you do accept that the lawsuit might have merit, why are you already dismissing it? Why not wait for the trial? Your position is based on claims from just one of the sides in the lawsuit. That's just silly. You are automatically assuming that this guy is telling the whole truth just because he's running a PR campaign to win over exactly people like you who don't bother to look rationally at the situation.

#60 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,080 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 05 May 2013 - 20:03

The thing is, based on everything we know, it's just as much an IF that he didn't do something illegal. You guys however have no problems hypothesizing that way...

So if you're going to give you assessment of the case based on the assumption that he's innocent. Then you should also give you assessment on what you think should he be guilty. as both are equal possibilities with the information we have.

and no the information provided to the public doesn't indicate whether he did or not. They are in fact wholly inadequate to even give a hint either way. All we have at this point is Opera suing and giving a reason why, but that's al that is public at this point, and him writing a blog that says "I didn't do it".... well duh...


The law allows that all accused are considered innocent until proven guilty; so no, I see no need to give an assessment on the guilty option. Opera must prove he sold trade secrets. Until then, he's innocent.

My stance is based on my own experience contracting, and my own general knowledge of how such contracts tend to be written in Europe. Unless you two have similar experience, I'll consider myself to have greater insight to what's probably going on here than you do.

Actually, whatever you work on for the company while paid by the company belongs to the company. If you don't want the company to own it, you don't work on it when you're taking their money.


I've already explained this, so I'm not going to bother again. Go back to me earlier post about it and read again.


No, I keep asking the question to see if your arguments are honest. Now, if you do accept that the lawsuit might have merit, why are you already dismissing it? Why not wait for the trial? Your position is based on claims from just one of the sides in the lawsuit. That's just silly. You are automatically assuming that this guy is telling the whole truth just because he's running a PR campaign to win over exactly people like you who don't bother to look rationally at the situation.


And you are automatically assuming the opposite, based on nothing other than Opera's say so and the presumption of guilt on the contractors part. The law doesn't work that way and neither do I.