5 ms·

Their lawsuit claims that "Opera Software ASA is an innovative company which has developed software and technology which have proved to be successful internatio

by smoyer 14y ago

Their lawsuit claims that "Opera Software ASA is an innovative company which has developed software and technology which have proved to be successful internationally". The article talks about features which aren't really IP. Perhaps their trade-secrets relate to coding and construction methods that make their product superior, but these really can't be protected unless they're so esoteric that no one would logically come up with them independently. So they sue a non-profit to stifle competition in their industry ... show me more innovation (and market-share) than Mozilla and then maybe I'll believe you're the innovator.

magclock 14y ago
They did not sue a non-profit. RTFA.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Not to mention, Mozilla corporation is not a non-profit :)
  - jfoster 14y ago
    Technically true, but they are 100% owned by a non-profit. (Mozilla Foundation owns Mozilla Corporation)
    - fosap 14y ago
      Consider even the NFL is non profit, non profit hardly means anything.
      - mpyne 14y ago
        The NFL leaque headquarters organization is a non-profit. The actual teams, on the other hand, are all profit-seeking entities and pay taxes accordingly.
        DannyBee 14y ago
        False: The green bay packers are also a non-profit. The whole thing is a fairly weird set up designed to avoid antitrust scrutiny and taxes. The NFL org just plows any profits back into the teams.
        mpyne 14y ago
        > The whole thing is a fairly weird set up designed to avoid antitrust scrutiny Well in that regard they failed, as the Congress passed laws decades ago quite specifically exempting the professional sports leagues from antitrust claims relating to sports broadcasting rights, and that was in response to a Supreme Court ruling on the antitrust problems with the NFL. And now with the NFL Network people are looking closely into whether that antitrust exemption should be retained at all. So I think it's hard to claim that the NFL is managing to use this to avoid antitrust scrutiny; if anything the NFL is bringing even more of it on themselves. > The NFL org just plows any profits back into the teams Which then shows up as extra income for the teams, which increases their profit (except for the Packers), which leads to higher taxes, etc. etc. I'm sure you can play accounting tricks to reduce the impact of the extra income but I see nothing weird by itself with having a League office to handle League-wide affairs that don't involve individual teams.
        DannyBee 14y ago
        Yes, i'm acutely aware of the various antitrust exemptions. However, the structure enables them to say they make no profits, and own no market: that would be the teams. Additionally, they will say there are no damages at all, since they are a non-profit, they make no money, and have nothing to gain for themselves by committing antitrust violations. Lastly, they will say being a 501(c)(6) specifically authorizes them to be doing what they are doing. At least their supreme court arguments were that they were operating as a single entity, "the NFL". They specifically called out their structure as being proof of this. Thus, this structure was, in part in attempt to avoid antitrust scrutiny. It was certainly a failure, but that doesn't mean it wasn't one of the reasons they did it :)
        eclipticplane 14y ago
      - homosaur 14y ago
        I feel what you're saying on this since the pro leagues being nonprofits seems silly on the surface but you could say that about any trade organization really. The US has a real problem with what's allowed to define itself as non-profit (scam religions like crack churches and Scientology, fake athlete charities, etc) but I don't think Mozilla falls in that camp.
        DannyBee 14y ago
        This is mostly true, and note that the NFL is not a 501(c)(3), they are a 501(c)(6) which is a very different kind of non-profit.
Shorel 14y ago
Trond Werner Hansen is not a non-profit. In fact, he's not even a corporation. As a side note, 80% of features in Mozilla were first done in Opera. I even remember a Firebird (as it was called back in the day, before version 1.0) fan or zealot badmouthing Opera and its tabs as being a ridiculous and unnecessary feature. After just four months, that feature was copied. It seems that crowd has not changed even a little. The only good thing in Mozilla is the OSS license. The only reason they have market share is the OSS license.
- gcp 14y ago
  I think 90+% of the Firefox users don't even know what open source is.
- icebraining 14y ago
  I don't think the event you describe was possible, because Mozilla had tabs before Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox even existed. In any case, Opera copied the tabs from other browsers too, so I'm not sure what's your point with that story. By the way, it wasn't just about the OSS license. Back in the day Opera had a big honking ad right in the main window. They only released an ad-free version in 2005, when Firefox already had 16 times the share of Opera.
  - Shorel 14y ago
    I have tried to find said discussion in vain. It's more about the attitude of Firefox users against Opera than anything else. That big ad is a sad bit of Internet history. A wasted opportunity. Also: they had a deal with Google to make it the default search engine before Firefox had one.
    - gcp 14y ago
      It's more about the attitude of Firefox users against Opera than anything else...they had a deal with Google to make it the default search engine before Firefox had one. "Selling out": Opera had it first!
  - yareally 14y ago
yareally 14y ago
> ... show me more innovation (and market-share) than Mozilla and then maybe I'll believe you're the innovator. I was surprised, but Wikipedia has a nice article in reference to Opera's features[1]. It even lists most of the dates the features were added/created. Opera also has a fairly large mobile market share[2], which is where Opera has traditionally pushed their browser more so than the desktop since the mid 2000s. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_of_the_Opera_web_browser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_of_the_Opera_web_brows... [2] http://9to5mac.com/2013/04/03/safaris-mobile-browser-market-share-lead-increases-past-61-in-march/ http://9to5mac.com/2013/04/03/safaris-mobile-browser-market-...

by smoyer 14y ago

magclock 14y ago

They did not sue a non-profit. RTFA.

DannyBee 14y ago
Not to mention, Mozilla corporation is not a non-profit :)
- jfoster 14y ago
  Technically true, but they are 100% owned by a non-profit. (Mozilla Foundation owns Mozilla Corporation)
  - fosap 14y ago
    Consider even the NFL is non profit, non profit hardly means anything.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      The NFL leaque headquarters organization is a non-profit. The actual teams, on the other hand, are all profit-seeking entities and pay taxes accordingly.
      - DannyBee 14y ago
        False: The green bay packers are also a non-profit. The whole thing is a fairly weird set up designed to avoid antitrust scrutiny and taxes. The NFL org just plows any profits back into the teams.
        mpyne 14y ago
        > The whole thing is a fairly weird set up designed to avoid antitrust scrutiny Well in that regard they failed, as the Congress passed laws decades ago quite specifically exempting the professional sports leagues from antitrust claims relating to sports broadcasting rights, and that was in response to a Supreme Court ruling on the antitrust problems with the NFL. And now with the NFL Network people are looking closely into whether that antitrust exemption should be retained at all. So I think it's hard to claim that the NFL is managing to use this to avoid antitrust scrutiny; if anything the NFL is bringing even more of it on themselves. > The NFL org just plows any profits back into the teams Which then shows up as extra income for the teams, which increases their profit (except for the Packers), which leads to higher taxes, etc. etc. I'm sure you can play accounting tricks to reduce the impact of the extra income but I see nothing weird by itself with having a League office to handle League-wide affairs that don't involve individual teams.
        DannyBee 14y ago
        Yes, i'm acutely aware of the various antitrust exemptions. However, the structure enables them to say they make no profits, and own no market: that would be the teams. Additionally, they will say there are no damages at all, since they are a non-profit, they make no money, and have nothing to gain for themselves by committing antitrust violations. Lastly, they will say being a 501(c)(6) specifically authorizes them to be doing what they are doing. At least their supreme court arguments were that they were operating as a single entity, "the NFL". They specifically called out their structure as being proof of this. Thus, this structure was, in part in attempt to avoid antitrust scrutiny. It was certainly a failure, but that doesn't mean it wasn't one of the reasons they did it :)
        eclipticplane 14y ago
    - homosaur 14y ago
      I feel what you're saying on this since the pro leagues being nonprofits seems silly on the surface but you could say that about any trade organization really. The US has a real problem with what's allowed to define itself as non-profit (scam religions like crack churches and Scientology, fake athlete charities, etc) but I don't think Mozilla falls in that camp.
      - DannyBee 14y ago
        This is mostly true, and note that the NFL is not a 501(c)(3), they are a 501(c)(6) which is a very different kind of non-profit.

Shorel 14y ago

Trond Werner Hansen is not a non-profit. In fact, he's not even a corporation. As a side note, 80% of features in Mozilla were first done in Opera. I even remember a Firebird (as it was called back in the day, before version 1.0) fan or zealot badmouthing Opera and its tabs as being a ridiculous and unnecessary feature. After just four months, that feature was copied. It seems that crowd has not changed even a little. The only good thing in Mozilla is the OSS license. The only reason they have market share is the OSS license.

gcp 14y ago
I think 90+% of the Firefox users don't even know what open source is.
icebraining 14y ago
I don't think the event you describe was possible, because Mozilla had tabs before Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox even existed. In any case, Opera copied the tabs from other browsers too, so I'm not sure what's your point with that story. By the way, it wasn't just about the OSS license. Back in the day Opera had a big honking ad right in the main window. They only released an ad-free version in 2005, when Firefox already had 16 times the share of Opera.
- Shorel 14y ago
  I have tried to find said discussion in vain. It's more about the attitude of Firefox users against Opera than anything else. That big ad is a sad bit of Internet history. A wasted opportunity. Also: they had a deal with Google to make it the default search engine before Firefox had one.
  - gcp 14y ago
    It's more about the attitude of Firefox users against Opera than anything else...they had a deal with Google to make it the default search engine before Firefox had one. "Selling out": Opera had it first!
- yareally 14y ago

yareally 14y ago

> ... show me more innovation (and market-share) than Mozilla and then maybe I'll believe you're the innovator. I was surprised, but Wikipedia has a nice article in reference to Opera's features[1]. It even lists most of the dates the features were added/created. Opera also has a fairly large mobile market share[2], which is where Opera has traditionally pushed their browser more so than the desktop since the mid 2000s. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_of_the_Opera_web_browser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_of_the_Opera_web_brows... [2] http://9to5mac.com/2013/04/03/safaris-mobile-browser-market-share-lead-increases-past-61-in-march/ http://9to5mac.com/2013/04/03/safaris-mobile-browser-market-...