Opera Settles $12.75m Lawsuit, But with Whom? 357
An anonymous reader writes "According to a press release from Opera Software ASA, they have settled legal claims with an
international corporation resulting in payment to Opera of net USD 12.75 million. The interesting bit is that the international corporation is unknown. Dagbladet speculates that Microsoft is paying up. They reason it has something to do with this."
Anything to do with browser technology... (Score:2, Insightful)
More information is needed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Great... (Score:1, Insightful)
makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has a lot to lose and taking down opera (or being caught doing something that looks like that) would seriously hurt their current EU legal status (monopolizing a competitor on the browser market). I'm sure microsoft will have settled this on very strict terms with Opera.
Opera however can use the funds to publicise itself FAIR wihtout slandering M$. That would be the wiser choice.
Re:Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand why people jump at microsoft every chance they get, but to pull accusations out of thin air is pretty mad :)
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
On the blog post you linked to, there's a comment about 1/3 of the way down by someone named "sas", doing a possible "review" of Firefox in the same manner that Opera was treated. I thought it was pretty on-target (and funny), especially the parts about the extentions.
Re:Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets pretend I run a club. While my club might be a really great, there are other clubs in the city, and they are really great, also.
I'm a bit of an elitest, so I only want people to come in that dress a certain way. So, I get my bouncers to stand outside and only let in the really attractive women in really nice cloths and guys that I think they might want hanging around them.
Well, it turns out that may be a good portion of the people that show up at my club, but I am still turning people away. These people go to other clubs since they can't get in mine.
Now, lets pretend that the pretty people don't spend as much money once they get past the door (some don't even get past the lobby), and the not-pretty people spend a good deal of money. My profits decline rapidly. I end up losing money in the end, but since I'm rich, I keep the place open. Other clubs are racking up dough.
Since I got tired of running my analogy about 1/2 way through, the quality of the analogy declined, but I'm sure everyone gets the point. If I am Bill Gates, and clubs are Internet Portals, and my club is MSN.com, and other clubs are other Internet Portals, and the bouncers are User Agent Detecting Scripts the point comes to light.
It's bad business to lock out people; but it is their business, and, assuming they aren't breaking any anti-discriminatory laws, they should be able to run it however they want. Sure you have a right to get pissed at them. But you also have a right to go somewhere else and tell everyone how shitty my bouncers are and how this other club does as good of a job anyway and has a better DJ. Make flyers and print stickers. Really stick it to me. You might even be able to convince some of the pretty people to start coming to the other club. You may even want to open your own club.
I'll admit that I'm ignoring that they have a monopoly and give out their browser home page set to MSN.com. If that is your complaint, don't bother replying. Otherwise, this is how I see it: A poor business decision.
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Too many things going on
It has just one more menu than Firefox (the standard Windows menu), the average menu size is maybe 3-4 items larger than Firefox's, and I have only 5 buttons in the toolbar (back, forward, refresh/stop [in same button], home, wand). 1 search field, 1 address field.
Can't say anything is in non-obvious places either. I mean, how hard can it be to find the proper menu option when you only have 3 non-standard menus at an average length of maybe 12 items? (I consider File, Edit, Window, Bookmark, Help to all be very standardized or straight forward with the regular options).
Re:Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice attempt at reasoning, but _arbitrary_ restrictions relating to sale/use of your product are viewed as discriminatory. I say _arbitrary_ because you can discriminate on objective reasons, even if they are "my nightclub is about stylish people, so we only let in those well dressed and with good attitude".
Secondly, it's more severe when the discrimination relates to a competitive product, and even more so when you are a dominant company. When you're building a large content service on the one hand, and owning a viewing technology on the other hand, and in both cases you have a dominant market share: then arbitrary restraints on competitors are pretty serious issues that regulators will tackle.
I note also that recent Microsoft has been doing a _lot_ of out of court settlements, it seems as though they want to pay off problems. Equally, the large anti-trust rulings mean that Microsoft is skating on thin-ice and has the scrutiny of the regulators who would use such activities as future evidence in antitrust actions.
Better to reach a settlement which involves a confidentiality clause in which the supposed activities won't in the future be disclosed or used in any regulatory action.
Wise commercial move Microsoft!
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:1, Insightful)
It should be called the "lean, mean crashing machine" because that's what it does 3-4 times a day for me.
Microsoft the humanitarian (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
But WHY would their generic sheet feed a declaration for unordered lists that called for the list to have a left margin that goes 30 pixels off the left side of the containing box (or page if the UL is a direct child of the body)? Even a poor css author would have a hard time pulling that declaration randomly out of his or her bodily orifice of choice. At the very least, it should have been caught during testing...if they wanted to provide any quality assurance at all.
Re:Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your analogy only works if MSN were to completely and visibly block Opera; which they actually tried with every [com.com] non-IE browser a few years ago. That didn't work out for them.
Re:Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that, it does look like a case of stupidity rather than malice. There's not much point in only breaking a single version of a minority browser, especially when that version is still so new as to be not yet widely adopted even by its fans.
I'd guess someone at MSN tested their CSS with a broken beta of Opera7, and built an Opera7-specific CSS to account for said breakage, but never tested again with the release version.
Re:Block out MSIE (Score:3, Insightful)
Set to "real UA" your site works fine.
Set to "IE", it redirects as specified.
Note that it is locking out MOZILLA if it *calls* itself IE.
IOW, your lockout script is just as broken as IE, because it only does a UA-string check, not a browser capabilities check.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. It's a pity they don't show the cartoons in the advertising bar anymore. I actually switched back to the ad supported version hoping to encourage them to keep plopping them in there. Wouldn't it be cool if they took comics like Dilbert or Get Fuzzy and had them appear regularly there? Certainly made me more attentive to the ads. Small price to pay for some entertainment.
Re:Great... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Block out MSIE (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft does make good browsers, just not on Windows. This code just makes you into an asshole to Mac users.
Re:Great (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, if you're really trying to get work done using Opera then surely you, or your employer, can afford to pay the registration fee to get rid of the ads.
Good software (such as Opera) is always worth paying for.
Short answer: Embedded devices. (Score:4, Insightful)
IE has won the desktop war long ago. But Opera is still a thread on devices.