[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/g/ - Technology



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: quantum.png (526 KB, 3160x2400)
526 KB
526 KB PNG
Who is in the wrong here?

> Mozilla dropped Yahoo as Firefox's default search provider last month, setting off a legal battle between the two firms.

>The two companies are now suing each other over a 2014 deal that made Yahoo Firefox's default search provider. That deal was reportedly quite favorable to Mozilla; it allowed the company to back out of the deal—and receive an annual payment of $375 million through 2019—if another company acquired Yahoo and Mozilla found the new partner to be unsuitable.

>Last month, Mozilla decided to trigger the company's contractual rights and terminated the deal, following Verizon's acquisition of Yahoo. This came as Mozilla launched Firefox Quantum, a major update to the browser that has been earning rave reviews.

>In response, Yahoo filed a legal complaint against Mozilla in a California court, claiming breach of contract.

>"Yahoo has suffered and will continue to suffer competitive injury to its business and reputation, among other harm," the complaint says. The lawsuit is demanding that Mozilla pay damages.

https://archive.fo/Whwat

pic sort of related
>>
File: Pai.jpg (58 KB, 200x240)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
God bless Verizon, defenders of our freedom!
>>
Two poorly run anti-consumer sjw companies fighting
>>
>>63731528
Yahoo was only a default in US. Firefox used Yandex for russia, some chink site for China and Google for every other country. Let Yahoo fail, they're irrelevant.
>>
>>63731573
amazon and google?
>>
>>63731573
>le social justice is a bad thing meem
Back to /pol/ with you.
>>
>>63731605

Back to r/cuckolding with you
>>
the whole "search engines paying browsers massive quantities of money so they can set the default search as theirs" is fucking weird.

Apparently Google also pays Apple somewhere around $1 billion a year so that Safari has Google as the default search (makes sense, why would Apple choose a lower bidder?)

Silicon Valley is fucking Sodom and Gomorrah
>>
>>63731619
>I unironically like injustice
We're hitting edgy levels that shouldn't even be possible!
>>
>>63731597
>they're irrelevant
Fuck off, they're one of the few search engines that aren't shilling for that net neutrality bullshit!
Yahoo is fucking based!
>>
>>63731649

(you)
>>
>>63731605
Back to reddît.
>>
>>63731619
I'm not the one using plebbit spacing. You go back to r/The_Donald.
>>63731672
Cry me a river, imbecile.
>>
>>63731528
> Whwat
Nice link.
>>
>>63731681
>p-pls respect my safe space!
No.
>>
There are a lot of things wrong with Mozilla these days, but I would readily side with Mozilla on this.

Disclaimer: The claim by Yahoo and Counter-Claim by Mozilla are redacted to hell and the language of the agreement is not available, so I have to read what is there and fill in the blanks.

First, let's split the argument into two parts:
1) What is morally right/best for the agreement and Firefox end users.

2) What is legally allowable and within Mozilla's right to invoke.

Starting with 1.

Mozilla switched to Yahoo.
Public Statement: Interest of the end users to improve search and their experience.
Private Reality: Google Money was drying up as Chrome took more marketshare, Yahoo deal was to get a better price and pressure Google for a counter.

Yahoo fails on meaningful search or mail enhancements, the data breach comes out, and then Verizon, a hated monolith, goes to take over Yahoo. With Verizon as a telco and anti net-neutrality, having them as a partner kind of goes against Mozilla's mission. Meanwhile many users change the search default back to Google and the usage drops. Mozilla asks Verizon/Oath (verizon subsidiary taking over yahoo) on the search agreement, and Verizon/Oath *tell Mozilla they should look at other search providers* rather than address their concerns over Yahoo's performance and direction.

tl;dr Yahoo makes promises, doesn't keep them, Verizon swoops in for Yahoo, Mozilla brings up concerns, Verizon tells them to piss off and look elsewhere.

So now we've addressed point number one, was it justified for Mozilla to back out from the interest of their end users. Let's move on to point number two.
>>
>>63731701
How do I filter out passfags?
>>
>>63731712
install 4chan x
>>
>>63731528

Good for Mozilla. Yahoo being bought by Verizon is definitely "unsuitable" from both a business and ethical standpoint. Time like this I'm glad to use Firefox because it being developed by a foundation allows these kinds of decisions to be made.

Fuck Verizon and fuck their Net Neutrality-hating shill FCC commissioners like Pai.
>>
>>63731701 continued
So now we move on to the law, which is a bit of a trickier situation.

A business can consent to a loan with a lender and they can both sign it, and that can specify whatever APR. But life and the law are not purely libertarian. Loans with effective APRs (stated APR + mandatory fees) above 30% are considered usurious in NY and null and void.

A shitload of Yahoo's complaint is redacted, similar to Mozilla's counter claim.

Contracts are all about language. They can protect or injure parties. Parties can assume risks under them. When language is ambiguous, they must be interpreted in a court of law in the least ambiguous fashion.

Yahoo had fucked up by not selling to MS, and the browser default was Yahoo's desperate attempt to turn around. They assumed risk in the contract language. This included a protection for Mozilla for Mozilla's benefit:

https://archive.fo/Whwat
>According to the change-of-control term, 9.1 in the agreement, Mozilla has the right to leave the partnership if — under its sole discretion and in a certain time period — it did not deem the new partner acceptable. And if it did that, even if it struck another search deal, Yahoo is still obligated to pay out annual revenue guarantees of $375 million.

Yahoo agreeing to a Verizon acquisition allows Mozilla to terminate Yahoo as the default while still getting paid. Yahoo knew this risk and accepted it in 2014 when they made it. Verizon either knew of this risk or failed in their due diligence when analyzing a Yahoo takeover.

So both from a point of user best interest and having a partner that embraces open web and other principles, and a legal standpoint, Mozilla looks like a clear winner here. But the redaction make declaring total victory impossible, just wait and see.

>>63731712
Install 4chan X
settings icon (upper right corner)
Filter
Select "Pass Date" in the dropdown
Remove the # in front of the second line.
>>
>>63731753
>Fuck Verizon and fuck their Net Neutrality-hating shill FCC commissioners like Pai.
This is probably a major part of why Yahoo was dropped. Mozilla is all about a free and open web.
>>
>>63731805
>heaving-handed regulation statist web
FTFY
>>
>>63731528
>allowed the company to back out of the deal -- if another company acquired Yahoo and Mozilla found the new partner to be unsuitable.
well, didn't that happen?
>>
>>63731805
>free and open web
>censoring built right in the browser
>>
>>63731605
Social justice is a good thing, but going to war (or """""war""""") over it is retarded- war always harms the goals of social justice. Militarism promotes isolation and harsh divides between in groups and out groups, deepening prejudices and further entrenching everyone involved.
>>
>>63731781
Basically agree with all of this.

Mozilla will put forward the argument that the continuing payment isn't unreasonable as it was a structured payment instead of a lump sum deal. I think Mozilla will prevail on this one, but as observed, there is plenty we don't know.

Also, fuck Verizon.
>>
>>63731862
What censoring? Can you point it out?
>>
>>63731834
It did and Verizon is asshurt about it.

Marissa Meyer was SO confident as Yahoo CEO that Yahoo would grow and not be acquired that she allowed that contract provision to be in there.

Verizon knew about the deal and the provision and the potential liability and bought them out anyways.

>>63731866
Re:code cites the section of the agreement on the payment and allowing termination if Yahoo was taken over, but the rest of the agreement isn't public record.

Given how much Meyer fucked up and how generally incompetent Yahoo was, I'm inclined to believe that Meyer included the language to strike the deal without taking proper steps to ensure the condition was restricted to certain reasons.

I'm witnessing a different lawsuit right now and over and over again the defendant (owes millions) tries to claim they could deem something as "unsuitable", when there's no contract language. It just required the defendant to do something within a period of time with no "outs" or "whims" for the defendant. And they're still dragging their feet and appealing endlessly.
>>
>>63731902
>Verizon knew about the deal and the provision and the potential liability and bought them out anyways.
how do they think they'll win the case, then?
>>
>>63731918
I don't. I just expect that Verizon will drag it out in court in a desparate move for the leadership that authorized it to save face.

By the time Verizon actually loses and appeals are exhausted the leadership responsible for the buyout and this provision will be elsewhere.
>>
>>63731863
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
>>
File: ironic community.png (166 KB, 633x436)
166 KB
166 KB PNG
>>63731605
I don't care if you're trying to be funny, or if you're just after attention, but posts like these are legitimately bad because most people can't tell you're not being sincere.
>>
>>63731962
Pretty sure you meant to quote >>63731830
>>
>>63731973
I linked the post I meant to link.
>>
Firefox will gets its free 1 BILLION thanks to this man
>>
>>63731528
>That deal was reportedly quite favorable to Mozilla; it allowed the company to back out of the deal—and receive an annual payment of $375 million through 2019
Yahoo was obviously in the wrong for making such a deal and then trying to sue over them making use of said deal.
>>
>>63733209
This. This isn't about Mozilla dropping the contract, but the fact that they want Yahoo to keep paying them while Google's the browser's default search engine.

It's a clause in the contract that Yahoo fucked up on, and Mozilla's taking advantage of it, though it is scummy as shit to do so.
>>
File: 1503589598328.jpg (30 KB, 605x395)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
>>63731649

Social justice directly opposes actual justice.
>>
>>63733969
It's not scummy, Yahoo is just dumb as shit for agreeing to it.

Most of the money Mozilla gets (90%) comes from search engine agreements. The overwhelming majority of that (~$347M of ~$400M) comes yearly from Yahoo.

Because of Firefox's decline in marketshare since making the Yahoo deal, it's unlikely that Google offered nearly as favorable terms. Thus, they need the amount of the Yahoo payments to continue hitting their expected incoming revenue against the expense they've occurred.
>>
File: wide.webm (413 KB, 1280x720)
413 KB
413 KB WEBM
>>63731668
>based
No, you're just an idiot.
>>
>>63735593
I hate to be spiteful but I'm glad that this is a sign Mozilla is struggling. Maybe they'll stop fucking around.
t. frustrated lifelong firefox user
>>
File: Bait.jpg (368 KB, 3000x3000)
368 KB
368 KB JPG
>>63731605
>>
>>63731528
Yahoo is in the wrong, when Marissa Mayer was CEO she was so desperate to whore out Y!Search, and agreed to pay Mozilla $375 MILLION BURGER COUPONS A YEAR if Mozilla decides to switch away for _any_ reason at all.

Yahoo is just butthurt, Mozilla scored an epic win by putting that in the contract.
>>
>>63731557
His debil expression calms my rage about the whole NN thing. If Verizon employed him at anytime then they are to incompetent to be evil.
>>
File: Altavista-1999.png (90 KB, 376x265)
90 KB
90 KB PNG
WISH WE NEVER BROKE UP RIGHT NOW NA NA NA




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.