5 ms·

I hope he has checked this with a lawyer and that he is not giving his adversary ammunition. Good luck.

hkmurakami 14y ago
I am honestly surprised that Mozilla's legal counsel has not stepped in already to offer advice and guidance. (this post is something that such an intervention most likely would have stopped)
- nawitus 14y ago
  Note that it's a court in Norway, not USA, which makes a rather large difference.
  - MichaelApproved 14y ago
    What are some of the key differences?
    - jonknee 14y ago
      For starters, Mozilla's lawyer has nothing to offer.
      - MichaelApproved 14y ago
        Wouldn't they have lawyers (plural)? I'd guess they also have access to lawyers who know the laws in other countries.
        jonknee 14y ago
        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.
        MichaelApproved 14y ago
        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.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  They probably are, just not directly to him, but to his lawyers. At least, for the US-side lawyers (I'm presuming Mozilla's US lawyers are on this one) due to conflict-of-interest rules, they would not be able to step in to offer advice and guidance to him directly, because the representation would probably be adverse to Mozilla's interests. The rule in most states (based on the ABA model rules) is " A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client , a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer." Even if you don't believe #1 applies, #2 definitely applies. Norway may have different rules, but the local Mozilla lawyers are bound by their local state bars, where this rule (or some variant) would apply. I've avoided discussion of whether this conflict could be consented to by him, etc, as it varies from state state This of course, only applies directly. They can and probably are talking with his lawyers, just not advising him directly.
  - marshray 14y ago
    It might also be a bit "adverse to Mozilla's interests" if they were less able to hire experienced developers in the future because they got a reputation of not sticking up for their current ones.
patmcguire 14y ago
This sounds like it was written by a lawyer, or at least run by one.
- lawnchair_larry 14y ago
  Wouldn't it be uncommon for a lawyer to allow him to say anything at all? As far as the lawyer's job is concerned, letting the client talk can never help, it can only hurt. I know this is the case for criminal cases, but I'm not sure if it applies to civil cases.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    What about the possibility (perhaps remote) that damaging the ex-employer's reputation (by disclosing what at least looks pretty vindictive) will bring it [ETA: the ex-employer] into a two-front war and make them less successful in the suit? I'm not a lawyer so I'm way out of my depth here, but is this something that could possibly work? Edit: slippery pronoun
    - nly 14y ago
      I don't see that being a problem, provided everything he wrote is simply a matter of fact. Perhaps I'm an optimist.
      - michaelochurch 14y ago
        No, I meant to discuss the possibility that disclosure is good for OP, because he'd want his ex-employer to be in a two-front war.
      - pyre 14y ago
        "Truth is an absolute defence against libel/slander," does not hold up under many jurisdictions in Europe. More like, "people with more money get to decide what the 'truth' is."
  - DannyBee 14y ago
LocalPCGuy 14y ago
It is possible he wanted to get some of his side out before being potentially muzzled in a plea deal of some sort with an NDA. Definitely sounds like the post was run past a lawyer to vet it before being posted.
hso9791 14y ago
He is obviously concerned to keep his good name. Assuming he can back up his narrative with facts in court, I cannot imagine Opera has a leg to stand on. If he followed up the conversation with the CEO with a clear email, then there is documentation in place. That the CEO hasn't responded should have no bearing, as an oral agreement is considered as binding as a contract in Norway.

I am honestly surprised that Mozilla's legal counsel has not stepped in already to offer advice and guidance. (this post is something that such an intervention most likely would have stopped)

nawitus 14y ago
Note that it's a court in Norway, not USA, which makes a rather large difference.
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  What are some of the key differences?
  - jonknee 14y ago
    For starters, Mozilla's lawyer has nothing to offer.
    - MichaelApproved 14y ago
      Wouldn't they have lawyers (plural)? I'd guess they also have access to lawyers who know the laws in other countries.
      - jonknee 14y ago
        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.
        MichaelApproved 14y ago
        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.
DannyBee 14y ago
They probably are, just not directly to him, but to his lawyers. At least, for the US-side lawyers (I'm presuming Mozilla's US lawyers are on this one) due to conflict-of-interest rules, they would not be able to step in to offer advice and guidance to him directly, because the representation would probably be adverse to Mozilla's interests. The rule in most states (based on the ABA model rules) is " A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client , a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer." Even if you don't believe #1 applies, #2 definitely applies. Norway may have different rules, but the local Mozilla lawyers are bound by their local state bars, where this rule (or some variant) would apply. I've avoided discussion of whether this conflict could be consented to by him, etc, as it varies from state state This of course, only applies directly. They can and probably are talking with his lawyers, just not advising him directly.
- marshray 14y ago
  It might also be a bit "adverse to Mozilla's interests" if they were less able to hire experienced developers in the future because they got a reputation of not sticking up for their current ones.

patmcguire 14y ago

This sounds like it was written by a lawyer, or at least run by one.

lawnchair_larry 14y ago
Wouldn't it be uncommon for a lawyer to allow him to say anything at all? As far as the lawyer's job is concerned, letting the client talk can never help, it can only hurt. I know this is the case for criminal cases, but I'm not sure if it applies to civil cases.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  What about the possibility (perhaps remote) that damaging the ex-employer's reputation (by disclosing what at least looks pretty vindictive) will bring it [ETA: the ex-employer] into a two-front war and make them less successful in the suit? I'm not a lawyer so I'm way out of my depth here, but is this something that could possibly work? Edit: slippery pronoun
  - nly 14y ago
    I don't see that being a problem, provided everything he wrote is simply a matter of fact. Perhaps I'm an optimist.
    - michaelochurch 14y ago
      No, I meant to discuss the possibility that disclosure is good for OP, because he'd want his ex-employer to be in a two-front war.
    - pyre 14y ago
      "Truth is an absolute defence against libel/slander," does not hold up under many jurisdictions in Europe. More like, "people with more money get to decide what the 'truth' is."
- DannyBee 14y ago

LocalPCGuy 14y ago

It is possible he wanted to get some of his side out before being potentially muzzled in a plea deal of some sort with an NDA. Definitely sounds like the post was run past a lawyer to vet it before being posted.

hso9791 14y ago

He is obviously concerned to keep his good name. Assuming he can back up his narrative with facts in court, I cannot imagine Opera has a leg to stand on. If he followed up the conversation with the CEO with a clear email, then there is documentation in place. That the CEO hasn't responded should have no bearing, as an oral agreement is considered as binding as a contract in Norway.