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.
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.
Edit: Seems Opera added tabs slightly before Mozilla after looking it up out of interest[2]. Also just some random history on tab integration in web browsers. Mozilla 0.9.5 added them a few months after Opera 4 in 2001, though of course neither was the first. I guess one can say Opera was the first browser to add them that is still a fairly popular browser in present day.
Four years later, in 1994, BookLink Technologies featured tabbed windows in its InternetWorks browser. That same year, a text editor called UltraEdit also appeared with a modern multi-row tabbed interface. The tabbed interface approach was then followed by the Internet Explorer shell NetCaptor in 1997. These were followed by a number of others like IBrowse in 1999, and Opera in [June] 2000 (with the release of version 4 - although a MDI interface was supported before then), MultiViews October 2000, which changed its name into MultiZilla on 1 April 2001 (an extension for the Mozilla Application Suite[7]), Galeon in early 2001, Mozilla 0.9.5 in October 2001, Phoenix 0.1 (now Mozilla Firefox) in October 2002, Konqueror 3.1 in January 2003, and Safari in 2003. With the release of Internet Explorer 7 in 2006, all major web browsers featured a tabbed interface.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_of_the_Opera_web_brows...
[1]: There's a feature request since 2000, but it was never implemented: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60775
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.
"Selling out": Opera had it first!
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_brows...
[2] http://9to5mac.com/2013/04/03/safaris-mobile-browser-market-...
The actual teams, on the other hand, are all profit-seeking entities and pay taxes accordingly.
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.
There's a lot more to the Packers' ownership; technically they are for-profit in Wisconsin due to state laws, but operate as a non-profit that issues stock. The stock does not have dividends, technically can only be transferred to family members, and has a per-person cap. Other teams can only have a few dozen joint owners; the Packers have something like 150,000 distinct "owner" shareholders that vote on things like stadium enhancements, etc. This is also why they haven't been moved from Green Bay -- too many rabid fans own shares that would never approve a move from Green Bay.
They are the only major sports team in the US to be structured anything like it.
Profits, as indicated on their public books, are either put back into the stadium/city development or go toward another non-profit that's quite active in Wisconsin.
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.
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 :)
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.