SPONSORED LINKS
Selective perception?
They only licensed Mosaic from Spyglass to get IE 1.0(or was it 2.0?) out the door quickly.
Yes, and as part of the license agreement, Spyglass would receive royalties on every copy of IE that was sold. Guess what happened [com.com], and why they sued Microsoft later and won a pittance? (Read the bottom half, if you bother.)
But then in around about IE 3.0 Microsoft rewrote the whole thing from scratch without using the Mosaic code.
Funny, you seem to know things that even Microsoft does not. Look in the "About" box in IE6 if you really believe there was ever a rewrite "from scratch".

You claim that Netscape did some devilish thing and was sued for it, yet I have no memory of, and can find no record of [webhistory.org], such an event ever having taken place. Are you thinking of the Netscape=>Microsoft antitrust suit? [itworld.com]

Does Opera have a license with spyglass?
Does Opera use Spyglass code? What's your point?
Legitimate question, I don't know... but are you saying that to create a browser you need it?
No, but if their code is used, they should be expected to be compensated for it. Microsoft subverted that compensation, which is why this is an on-topic thread for this discussion.
This is gratutious Microsoft bashing, plain and simple and a completely different situation than this Sendo story.
Maybe if you actually knew or cared to know the facts, you'd think differently. Somehow, I doubt it.

Score:2