web Opera sues designer for leaking trade secrets

[HawkMan]

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.

[FloatingFatMan]

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.

[Growled Member]

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?

[PreKe]

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?

[FloatingFatMan]

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.

[HawkMan]

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...

[PreKe]

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?

[Athernar]

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.

[PreKe]

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.

[FloatingFatMan]

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.

[PreKe]

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

Actually, it's highly relevant because if you don't even think stealing business secrets or breaching contract should be illegal then it's pointless to discuss anything with you.

On the other hand, if you think it's OK to steal from someone or breach contracts with them as long as it's Opera you are a dishonest hypocrite, and I think people reading this discussion have the right to know that you are.

So which one is it? Do you agree that someone who does what this guy was accused of should be sued?

[PreKe]

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.

This is nonsense. We are discussing the case, not ruling on it. The fact is we can't know either way at this point, and you are basing your opinions on unproven claims by the guy who was sued. You clearly have a bias here which you are trying to get away from with "assumed innocent."

I'm responding to nonsense like yours because you have already decided that Opera is wrong, and Opera can never do right. This is what I have now exposed.

[Athernar]

Actually, it's highly relevant because if you don't even think stealing business secrets or breaching contract should be illegal then it's pointless to discuss anything with you.

On the other hand, if you think it's OK to steal from someone or breach contracts with them as long as it's Opera you are a dishonest hypocrite, and I think people reading this discussion have the right to know that you are.

So which one is it? Do you agree that someone who does what this guy was accused of should be sued?

Oh well then, if you really want to go down that route. Full disclosure on your part of your financial assets and current + previous employer(s) please, and I do believe I asked first.

[FloatingFatMan]

This is nonsense. We are discussing the case, not ruling on it. The fact is we can't know either way at this point, and you are basing your opinions on unproven claims by the guy who was sued. You clearly have a bias here which you are trying to get away from with "assumed innocent."

I'm responding to nonsense like yours because you have already decided that Opera is wrong, and Opera can never do right. This is what I have now exposed.

.. Exposed?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[PreKe]

Oh well then, if you really want to go down that route. Full disclosure on your part of your financial assets and current + previous employer(s) please, and I do believe I asked first.

You are getting even more desperate. Why can't you answer a simple and relevant 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?

This is not just a random question, but a question with actual relevance to the discussion.

[Athernar]

You are getting even more desperate. Why can't you answer a simple and relevant question?

I could cut the hypocrisy with a knife.

This is not just a random question, but a question with actual relevance to the discussion.

Nope! Now, your financials and employment listing please.

[HawkMan]

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.

Yeah, that would have been true, if this was a criminal lawsuit.

[PreKe]

I could cut the hypocrisy with a knife.

Nope! Now, your financials and employment listing please.

You can't answer a simple and relevant yes/no question, but want me to answer an irrelevant question you made up because you are too scared to be honest about this case?

Weak.

[FloatingFatMan]

Yeah, that would have been true, if this was a criminal lawsuit.

It still applies in civil courts, too.

[Athernar]

You can't answer a simple and relevant yes/no question, but want me to answer an irrelevant question you made up because you are too scared to be honest about this case?

Weak.

So you ask a question with intent to try and dismiss any dissenting opinions by attacking character, but you won't disclose if you have/had have any connection to the parties involved (i.e. establishing character)?

Weak.

[PreKe]

So you ask a question with intent to try and dismiss any dissenting opinions by attacking character, but you won't disclose if you have/had have any connection to the parties involved (i.e. establishing character)?

Weak.

No, I ask a question to see if you are being honest and consistent with your arguments, or if you are just flailing aimlessly around.

[Kevjoesaurus]

I'm surprised by some posters here that show no respect at all for Opera... like it or not, it's probably the most innovative browser arround.

They were the first with tabbed browsing (could you imagine living without it now?), were the first with a pop up blocker, mouse gestures and tons of other stuff.

Look for more info here: http://www.opera.com/portal/15/years/

 

They might have slowed down with Opera 15, and I didn't like the change from Presto either, but I'm using Opera 15 and I'm enjoying it more than Opera 12 (though I miss a lot of features, but surfing Facebook isn't a hell anymore).

They do know that a lot of features aren't available yet. They will add new features again, but give them some time.

 

And more on topic, Opera has every right to sue this person if he really did steal something, but this isn't our concern. If Opera feels that something was stolen, and they feel that it is enough to sue, Try to google opera sues and you will see that it's basicly the only time that opera sued anyone themselves, or one of the few times. Look up google sues or microsoft sues, you'll see something completely different...

We don't even know what was stolen, and as long as we don't know that we shouldn't argue. It could be something very obvious, but alas we do not know yet.

[gameboy1977]

Opera is soooo big baby crying and says, "Hello EU (as their mummy), and I want to sue this person who steal stuff from our product!" *baby crying!*

[HawkMan]

Opera is soooo big baby crying and says, "Hello EU (as their mummy), and I want to sue this person who steal stuff from our product!" *baby crying!*

 

 

Uh what ? They are a Norwegian company suing a Noregian in the Norwegian court system for break of contract, like any company in a similar situation would do. 

[dr_crabman]

Opera is soooo big baby crying and says, "Hello EU (as their mummy), and I want to sue this person who steal stuff from our product!" *baby crying!*

 

Some people really do turn their brains off everytime they read the name Opera, don't they? Same goes for the OP.