Now I don't blame anybody for trying to milk Facebook and I'm definitely not rooting for Facebook, but it's the general principle that counts.
Yahoo has been using patents offensively. When big companies can no longer innovate, they litigate.
> On December 1, Yahoo Holdings and Oath filed a legal complaint against Mozilla in Santa Clara County court claiming that we improperly terminated our agreement
If I had to guess, Yahoo seems to be arguing that the Verizon deal and restructuring didn't trigger the "change of control provisions", but Mozilla is arguing that the provisions were triggered. Since none of us have access to the original contract, it's impossible to say who is right, but with so much money on the table it's no surprise that the lawyers were brought in.
Apart from the lawyers.
Most of their clients force them to do it anyway.
Meanwhile, the lawyers take the blame for being forced
to do what their clients ask, despite their clients being
3 year olds about it.
Even taking the bright-side interpretation though: at least one of them failed in removing the further litigation cost and risk, their goal as you say is to protect their client as you say and that is often the best way.
If them, Yahoo - have any reason to believe they will win this case, then certainly what did Mozilla expect?
I was somewhat sympathetic to poor old Yahoo, but I hope Mozilla takes Verizon to the cleaners in court.
Isn't it weird how we anthropomorphize companies like that? It's just a name. One that can be bought and worn like a mask by pretenders.
Developers aren't happy, customers aren't happy and now, partners aren't happy. Google is happy.
Nobody will take you seriously if you think that the biggest browser re-write since Microsoft introduced Edge is "just for the good of change".
Therefore if the Corporation makes more money than they feel like investing, they either have to put it aside for later investments or pay it out to the Foundation, which is then legally forced to invest it.
The only real thing where they could shove money to the side is with paying their workers too high wages.
I am both of these and could not disagree more.
Either Mozilla know something I don't, or they're sticking with a sinking ship and forgot to jump to the robust ship that was launched quite a few years back.
(cough Netscape cough)
The confusing part, as pointed out in the top comment in the post, is that the contract as interpreted by Swisher would certainly be material enough to be mentioned in Yahoo financials. However, the Yahoo filings at the time gave no such indication of this obligation.
The concern here would be if they burn bridges with Yahoo, than they have less negotiating leverage with Google.
I forget, is Yahoo search based on Bing, or is it the other way around, or is that deal dead?
DDG is effectively outsourcing the search infrastructure to Bing, which puts it in a precarious position.
If DDG becomes the default in Firefox, will Microsoft accept the increased traffic or exposure? Will they keep their current commitment to DDG?
Bing is the only game in town for Google alternatives.
Here's a sample of what can happen: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/15/bing_microsoft_duck...
>I forget, is Yahoo search based on Bing, or is it the other way around, or is that deal dead?
Both Google and Bing.
>"Yahoo disclosed the details of a new search deal it's formed with Google after releasing its third-quarter earnings results today. Under the terms of a new arrangement effective October 1st and lasting until the end of 2018, Google will provide Yahoo with search ads, algorithmic search, and image search services for both desktop and mobile. And according to a regulatory filing, Yahoo will also get to decide which search queries to send to Google and will not have to meet a minimum requirement of queries."
Wow. What a phenomenally bad deal that was for Yahoo and Marissa Mayer
Was it desperation - "If only we could put yahoo search in front of all those firefox users, yahoo will prosper again". Sadly I do imagine someone saying that. People who would disagree probably jumped ship a long time ago.
Bankruptcy or a new owner of your supplier may change their product so significantly that you want an immediate out without having to keep your side of the obligations. The supplier just restates with that clause that they won't change the product drastically and what that product is exactly is specified in the rest of the contract.
I like it.