Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My former employer Opera Software has filed a lawsuit against me

trondblog.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 250 posts

Re: My former employer Opera Software has filed a lawsuit against me

#231

Post by Androidmeda »

Deestan wrote: post #186
stormen wrote: post #129

In Norway, it's usual for employees to sign intellectual copyright waivers for all work done for their employers. If Trond developed parts of the CB browser and/or other intellectual property whilst working for Opera (during office hours), they could easily claim - and probably win - a case that parts and/or all of the CB browser rightfully belonged to Opera Software. I haven't read their lawsuit, I'm just saying tha…

> In Norway, it's usual for employees to sign intellectual copyright waivers for all work done for their employers. Yes, but that does not seem to be what this is about. On the surface it seems he was re-using good ideas rather than copying over actual work. The nettby case was about outright copying source code.

Re-using ideas/features he was paid for at Opera? Doesn't that make those Opera's property?

Re: My former employer Opera Software has filed a lawsuit against me

#233

Post by a-non-ymouse »

Opera employee here. Anon for obvious reasons XD

Didn't work there when Trond did so I can't speak to his moral standing, but there's been talk around the water cooler about the lawsuit.

Several people who worked with Trond in 2009-2010 (and even before 2006) are still here and the impression I'm getting is that they're annoyed with Trond for taking all the credit for the work and ignoring all the work they put into the stuff he later handed to Mozilla.

He pretends to be the lone innovator but the truth is he got plenty of help. He took a healthy paycheck from Opera and then turned around and handed the results over to Mozilla.

My 2¢: He's going to lose the lawsuit.

Re: My former employer Opera Software has filed a lawsuit against me

#234

Post by eliasmacpherson »

Androidmeda wrote: post #225
eliasmacpherson wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn't thought of that. Not only do Opera's direct employees need to watch their steps - but contractors too. It's almost as if they want people to go in, collect their paychecks and offer up nothing above average.

Do Opera employees have to watch their steps to a greater degree than employees in other companies? I think that if you stole trade secrets from any other company and sold them to a competitor, they would sue you as well. All you need to do to avoid being sued is to not sell trade secrets to competitors.

Well we'll see the outcome of this case, you can be sued if you didn't which may be the case here. I haven't heard of a software dev being sued like this before, so I would say Opera employees do have to watch their steps to a greater agree, given there's precedent.

Re: My former employer Opera Software has filed a lawsuit against me

#235

Post by eliasmacpherson »

Androidmeda wrote: post #220
lesbaker wrote: post #122

Honest question: How would Opera Software prove in court that Trond Hansen stole browser ideas/feature concepts (if I'm reading it correctly)? Subpoena Mozilla's emails? My gut says if this goes to court it will devolve into "he said/she said".

It seems pretty straightforward. Trond Hansen was apparently paid to do some consultancy design work for Opera. After accepting his paycheck and moving on, he decided to take the design(s) he made while at Opera, and give it to Mozilla. This doesn't sound like a very clever thing to do. It sounds very illegal indeed.

Depends on the contract he signed, and where he signed it. For example, some contracts stipulate all work inside and outside of work hours belongs to the employer, most others don't.

Re: My former employer Opera Software has filed a lawsuit against me

#236

Post by MichaelApproved »

jonknee wrote: post #135
MichaelApproved wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't they have lawyers (plural)? I'd guess they also have access to lawyers who know the laws in other countries.

Maybe they have a lawyer on retainer in Norway, but I doubt it. I'm sure they'll get one, but it would be strange for a non-profit like Mozilla to have a worldwide legal staff.

Many large law Liam's know international law. I'd guess that a company like theirs with a strong international presence would be interested in that.

Even if they don't have someone handy who knows Norwegian law, they could easily retain them.

My point is that proper legal advice can not be what's preventing them from helping. My question to OP was about the differences in laws which he/she was referring to.

Re: My former employer Opera Software has filed a lawsuit against me

#237

Post by eliasmacpherson »

Androidmeda wrote: post #231
Deestan wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In Norway, it's usual for employees to sign intellectual copyright waivers for all work done for their employers. Yes, but that does not seem to be what this is about. On the surface it seems he was re-using good ideas rather than copying over actual work. The nettby case was about outright copying source code.

Re-using ideas/features he was paid for at Opera? Doesn't that make those Opera's property?

Only if the contract signed says so. There's usually a standard section in the contract for this sort of thing so it really depends on that.

Re: My former employer Opera Software has filed a lawsuit against me

#238

Post by wpietri »

claudius wrote: post #164
wpietri wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is enough to sue someone. It's not enough to win, but it's definitely enough to sue. There's some logic behind that. To prove claims like that, you may need the power of the court to get documents or witness statements under oath. The process is know as discovery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_%28law%29 Unfortunately, it also means that the party being sued has to suddenly put up a bunch of cash to pay…

> Unfortunately, it also means that the party being sued has to suddenly put up a bunch of cash to pay to defend the lawsuit. In any decent legal system, you can get publicly funded lawyers if you are unable to pay for your own, and if you win, you get your costs back anyways.

For civil suits? Really? Which ones do that?

Re: My former employer Opera Software has filed a lawsuit against me

#239

Post by ibrahima »

kamaal wrote: post #151
ibrahima wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't used Opera on desktop in probably a decade, but it's been around since before Mozilla. How is it a 'me too' product?

Note most people(young) might not even be aware of the era you are talking about. They might be the first to do something. But so was AOL to many things. Who(or how many compare to their competitors) uses AOL these days?

I'm probably what most people would consider young (22), but I see your point. But 'me too' has a very specific connotation of entering a market late because everyone is doing it, at least to me, which is the opposite of what Opera has done.

Re: My former employer Opera Software has filed a lawsuit against me

#240

Post by bzbarsky »

TheDag wrote: post #196
bzbarsky wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Mozilla Corporation is a "for-profit" entity, which mostly means it pays taxes on its profits, if any. The Mozilla Foundation, which owns the Mozilla Corporation, is a non-profit (which means several things in this instance, like the fact that it does not pay corporate income taxes and donations to it are tax-deductible). Every so often, the Mozilla Corporation, pays dividends to its sole owner (the Foundation).…

> All of which is to say that the term "for-profit" doesn't necessarily mean the entity's sole purpose is to maximize profit, or indeed to make one at all; it's simply a classification for tax law purposes... Except the minor detail that any for-profit is in fact legally OBLIGED to maximize profit for its shareholders.

You're confusing "for-profit" and "publicly traded". It's commonly held that publicly traded companies should be maximizing shareholder value (which is not necessarily the same as profit), because that's the purpose of publicly traded corporations.

There are also various protections for minority shareholders in privately held companies to prevent majority shareholders from screwing them over.

And there are various rules about how the company's officers need to pay attention to the shareholders.

In this case, there is precisely one shareholder: the Mozilla Foundation. So the various minority-shareholder protection stuff does not apply, but the officers of the Mozilla Corporation do need to pay attention to what the Foundation wants the Corporation to do. And what the sole shareholder wants the Corporation to do in this case is decidedly not to maximize profit.

Post reply on HN