[liquidise]

Right, because justice tends to be a one-sided story. Let's be clear that all you are basing your opinion on is an abridged, single viewpoint account of events.

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.

[malgorithms]

Unfortunately, justice is a one-sided story when large companies sue individuals or tiny companies at large corporate magnitudes. A defense alone can be financially devastating. Second, sadly, it's for "trade secrets" in the the world of software. Come on!

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.

[edanm]

Just to be clear: you're standing by your statement that you don't need any more info to decide that Opera is in the wrong here. They're categorically in the wrong, as long as they are actually suing an individual for divulging trade secrets. There is literally no more information that would change your mind if you heard it.

[doktrin]

I agree with you in principle, but I have to admit I'm not sure what justification Opera could have for this type of vendetta-esque suit.

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.

[laureny]

> I'm not sure what justification Opera could have for this type of vendetta-esque 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.

[doktrin]

> The simplest justification there is: they think they're right. Is it so hard to conceive?

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?

[coldtea]

>And until this thing goes to court, everybody should abstain from passing judgment on either party.

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).

[dlitz]

> 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.

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.

[coldtea]

>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.

[enraged_camel]

Please tell us what is so "balanced" about a large company suing an individual for millions of dollars.

[liquidise]

Compared to...? An individual leaving a large company and giving our legitimate trade secrets to a competitor company potentially ruining revenues (and thus salaries) for thousands?

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.

[artsrc]

> legitimate trade secrets

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.

[liquidise]

I'm sure coke thinks trade secrets are both quite important and last quite a while.

The quality of evidence tends to outweigh the quality of lawyer, assuming reasonable competence.