> ...because they think he gave secret information to a nonprofit.

That it is a non-profit is hardly meaningful. It's still a competitor, a competitor that seeks surplus revenues. It doesn't make the lawsuit any more or less valid.

> What more do I need to know?

How about the facts of the case rather than the surface-level circumstances? That's probably a start. I'm not saying Opera is in the right for this, but I think it's a bit premature to start casting heroes and villains in this particular narrative.

It doesn't make the lawsuit more or less valid. But that's for courts to decide. It does make Opera more a jerk for pursuing it, which is what I am focusing on here.

By your logic, I should really wait for the case to be resolved to have an opinion on it. That, again, is the right take for a judge. But personally, I think companies suing employees is almost always a bad idea, especially when a) it looks like a way of getting back at a competitor, and b) it could have a chilling effect on innovation. So if Opera wants me to not see them as bullies, they are welcome to make a statement about why they're suing. If they do that, my opinion may change, but I'm perfectly comfortable keeping my opinion.

> The guy hasn't worked there full time since 2006, but Opera has decided to seriously fuck up his life.

That's an interesting reading of the former employee's story. According to his post, he entered into a consulting agreement with Opera in 2009 and between 2009 and the time his agreement was terminated in late 2010, "some of my design proposals will naturally be based on some of my older GB concepts."

I don't think anyone has enough information at this point to pass judgement on the merits of the case, but at a minimum, this looks like a pretty good example of what can go wrong when you involve ideas you've developed on your own in a consulting relationship, particularly when there's a chance you may want to further explore those ideas after the relationship ends.

While reading, this was my conclusion too. If he wrote down the ideas somewhere, he could prove that the ideas and concept was original his. Even in Europe, disclosing ideas early can be useful, as it protects oneself from trade secret claims.

Isn't Mozilla corporation (not foundation) for-profit?

Edit: according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation it is for-profit

The Mozilla Corporation is a "for-profit" entity, which mostly means it pays taxes on its profits, if any.

The Mozilla Foundation, which owns the Mozilla Corporation, is a non-profit (which means several things in this instance, like the fact that it does not pay corporate income taxes and donations to it are tax-deductible).

Every so often, the Mozilla Corporation, pays dividends to its sole owner (the Foundation).

So one flow of money is as follows: The Mozilla Corporation has revenue, spends some of it on things like salaries, rent for offices, etc, pays taxes on what's left, then saves some of the rest for future capital expenditures and pays the rest out as dividends to the Mozilla Foundation.

Another flow of money is people donating directly to the Mozilla Foundation.

The Mozilla Foundation then spends the money it has on various things that futher its mission, including grants to various open-source projects and whatnot.

The reason the setup is what it is, as I understand, is that there were some questions as to whether some of Mozilla's revenue sources were OK for a legal nonprofit, precisely because nonprofits do not pay taxes on any excess of revenue over expenses. So this dual structure was set up to make sure that taxes were paid on anything that looked like profit from operations, just in case.

Note that in all cases there are no individuals who are getting paid the profits as there would be in a privately held company, nor are there shareholders involved apart from the Foundation.

All of which is to say that the term "for-profit" doesn't necessarily mean the entity's sole purpose is to maximize profit, or indeed to make one at all; it's simply a classification for tax law purposes...

As always, I am not a corporate tax lawyer (nor any kind of lawyer), and this is not legal advice. ;)

> All of which is to say that the term "for-profit" doesn't necessarily mean the entity's sole purpose is to maximize profit, or indeed to make one at all; it's simply a classification for tax law purposes...

Except the minor detail that any for-profit is in fact legally OBLIGED to maximize profit for its shareholders.

That is incorrect. Any company must act in the best interest of its shareholders. A publicly-traded company must maximize profit because that's the implicit nature of it: I buy stock in the market because I want a return on my investment. But if all shareholders of a given company (say, Mozilla) want to produce something for the good of the Internet and not make a profit, that's up to the shareholders.

A "non-profit" status simply gives the organization certain tax advantages because the state understands that the organization is acting on the best interest of the community, rather than its shareholders. But if a for-profit wants to do the same and not take advantage of said tax benefits, that's up to the shareholders to decide.

http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/glossaryf/g/fiduciary.htm

Corporations in the United States are legally obligated to maximize profit.

It's not an implicit nature, it's an explicit legal requirement.

That's a common belief, but quite false. See Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company#Sig...

I believe the requirement to maximize profit is a requirement of the stock exchanges, not a requirement of being a company.

A company can be created for many different purposes.

Can you provide a link to the law that says a corporation must maximize profit even when it's against the desires of its shareholders?

Even if that were true, only the shareholders would have standing to sue them for failing to maximize profit. Clearly the only shareholder, the Mozilla Foundation, is not going to sue Mozilla Corporation for doing what the shareholder wants it to.

You're confusing "for-profit" and "publicly traded". It's commonly held that publicly traded companies should be maximizing shareholder value (which is not necessarily the same as profit), because that's the purpose of publicly traded corporations.

There are also various protections for minority shareholders in privately held companies to prevent majority shareholders from screwing them over.

And there are various rules about how the company's officers need to pay attention to the shareholders.

In this case, there is precisely one shareholder: the Mozilla Foundation. So the various minority-shareholder protection stuff does not apply, but the officers of the Mozilla Corporation do need to pay attention to what the Foundation wants the Corporation to do. And what the sole shareholder wants the Corporation to do in this case is decidedly not to maximize profit.

Except the minor detail that being for-profit does not, itself, imply that the company has shareholders.

It is fairly common for non-profits to own for profit subsidiaries which often become the main sources of revenue and sustainability for the non-profit.

When they were talking to me about the job they say the corp is required to keep salaries etc secret and otehr operational things.

$3.4 million NOK = $600,000 USD

Still a lot of money, but they also claim that they lost $20M NOK because of this alleged breach and that's just $4M USD, which is when put in perspective - peanuts.

there's no such thing as $3.4 million NOK. it's either $ or NOK.

lawsuit is for 20 million NOK which equals roughly $3.4 million.

>>keep on trying to make something awesome.

Opera is not seeing a traction as in some very good numbers. It's been always there as that browser some people use. Maybe innovating is not on their agenda anymore and they would rather be happy (or might scheme/plan) this way to be rather acquired for a good some.