There is such a rush to bless this guys post and chastise opera in these comments it is astounding. I don't understand the complete disregard for a balanced consideration of the facts.
I (and again, this is personal, lest someone drag my former companies into this) stand by my statements, as long as this lawsuit exists.
If the basic facts themselves are wrong, then of course I will back off my statement. If Opera is not suing an individual for ~$3.4MM USD for divulging trade secrets, then great.
Frankly, I'm surprised all around. Lawsuits in Norway are, by and large, less frivolous and for appreciably lower sums of money than in the US. I have no idea what they hope to gain from what is already a PR disaster, nor what court will entertain this suit.
The simplest justification there is: they think they're right. Is it so hard to conceive?
And until this thing goes to court, everybody should abstain from passing judgment on either party.
Actually, yes. Even if morally, then certainly not pragmatically.
> And until this thing goes to court, everybody should abstain from passing judgment on either party.
That doesn't make sense. Most suits settle out of court, after all. Should we wait to pass judgment every time a patent troll carpet bombs small businesses?
Why? I won't abstain from passing judgement to the party I think is in the wrong even AFTER this goes to court.
I don't think court decisions are necessarily the truth, and that I should agree with them. I only care about facts to make my personal judgment. If what he says is true, then even if the guy is convinced, I will still believe he is in the right.
(Heck, I don't even find all laws to be ethical. Segregation was law too at some point, for example).
Well, sure, but are you actually going to spend enough hours poring over the details in order to come to a reasonably well-informed personal opinion, compared with what a court will do? Courts are not perfect, but they're generally much better are sorting out the details than the media or random bloggers.
Not so sure. To continue the segregation example, for centuries (including today) courts have been shown time and again to be absolutely unfair in handing sentences to black people compared to white (even for the same exact crime). Or to rich people compared to poor (think O.J Simpson vs a homeless person accused of murder).
In this case of course we don't have that. But we do have another imbalance: the small guy versus a large company that can pay the best lawyers.
Plus, if one finds the very law someone is charged by unethical (e.g patent law), he doesn't even have to delve into the details of the matter to deem any sentencing unjust.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons for lawsuits from large corps to individuals. I have no idea if this is one of them. incidentally, that is why judges exist.
How long do trade secrets legitimately last in your view?
There is room for people to have different views on this.
> that is why judges exist
The law is not equal when the parties have very different levels of resources. The existence of judges does not change this.
The quality of evidence tends to outweigh the quality of lawyer, assuming reasonable competence.