Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

wpengine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 717 posts

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#141

Post by DannyBee »

Kye wrote: post #114
photomatt wrote: post #57

Howdy, Matthew Charles Mullenweg from the lawsuit here. One thing I'm surprised they disclosed is on page 35 that Heather Brunner at WP Engine was interviewing for a job at Automattic. That's why we were spending so much time together 1:1 without her team there in the meetings I posted here: https://automattic.com/2024/10/01/wpe-terms/ They lied that it was to run WordPress.com, though, she wanted to be the Executive…

Don't lawyers usually advise their clients to stop talking about it when they're sued? Or is that one of those cliches that isn't true

Lawyer here - we do. For very good reason.

A. Legally, it cannot possibly help you (whatever happened, happened). However, it can hurt you (inconsistent statements, etc). This is particularly true in colloquial environments like HN.

B. While it may be useful reputation/press wise, because anything you do wil be evidence, you should be having someone else do that.

C. If you are part of a publicly traded company, you can run into SEC violations quickly from what you say, how you say it, and where you say it. Even moreso if you are CEO/an officer/etc

I could go on forever here - for example, you can also run yourself into trouble quickly if the people you are talking to are people you know may be witnesses in the case, etc.

There is a near infinite number of reasons lawyers tell people to STFU when you get sued.

Of course, if your company/you as CEO get sued, it can obviously be incredibly frustrating and difficult to sit there and watch a one-sided story take hold - not the least of reasons because people often take complaints as evidence rather than assertions, and the response rarely gets as much press, etc.

I think the closest lots of HNers come is when they love their company and see a legal complaint pop up on HN that they felt is just insane but can't say anything about it. It's like that, but like 100x worse :P.

But saying nothing is the most useful thing you can do - get away from it. Take a walk, meditate, whatever.

Get the people who are experts in handling it involved (lawyers, comms folks, whatever), and let them do their job.

I'm going to do him the favor of not responding to anything else he writes in this thread for his own good.

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#142

Post by [deleted] »

jameslk wrote: post #127
lolinder wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the two entities completely controls the plugin ecosystem and wielded that control against the other entity (the largest WordPress host except, possibly, Automattic itself) to block them and all of their customers out of the ecosystem over this dispute. That's why this matters to average developers. WordPress is the plugin ecosystem, and messing around with it does as much damage to the WordPress ecosystem as…

The more you press the nuclear button, the more you damage your reputation. I’m of the opinion that the circumstances here are exceptional and rationality will prevail

[deleted]

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#143

Post by shabgzer »

The more I read through the history detailed in the complaint, the more sad I become about the state of affairs. I am still on WP Engine's side because I believe Matt has gone way off track, but on the other hand, it has to be acknowledged that Matt has very selflessly helped grow WordPress into what it is today. The hosting bills for WordPress.org's plugin repository for instance can't be cheap, god knows how they fund it.

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#144

Post by ec109685 »

shabgzer wrote: post #129
pclmulqdq wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your response to this complaint is going to look very interesting. Also, a note for the audience: Quinn Emanuel is one of the premier (and most expensive) litigation firms in the US. Partners in their litigation department run $2000/hour or more. Associates cost almost $1000/hour. WPEngine apparently has deep pockets.

That $1000+/hr apparently does not guarantee great proofreading. Already found two typos and am not even a quarter of the way through: - Page 12: "wordrpess.org" - Page 17: "fundamental principal"

At least we know a human wrote it :)

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#145

Post by cdolan »

photomatt wrote: post #96
aimazon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"she wanted to be the Executive Director of WordPress.org for Automattic" But you own and run and finance WordPress.org personally, as you've revealed and talked about numerous times in the last few weeks. I don't follow, how can Heather apply for a job with Automattic to be the Executive Director of a website you personally own?

Automattic employs ~100 people that work full-time on WordPress.org. I can appoint them into positions on WordPress.org, if I think that's appropriate.

So wordpress.org is effectively for-profit

Why did your legal officer today post in a blog post that its a non-profit?

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#146

Post by duskwuff »

DannyBee wrote: post #81
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is this relevant? Well, you really have to think of this stuff as contracts to use a given copy of software, and not as some abstract thing licensed or not. If you think about it in that way, copyright infringement is out of the picture completely because of the statutory exception. 17 U.S.C § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—…

Err, no. That statutory exemption was created to resolve one court case and one worry: 1. A holding that you can commit infringement simply by loading a program into memory even for maintenance purposes. This was MAI v. Peak, one of the earliest real court cases on software copyright infringement. It was unfortunately followed by lots of courts. 2. A worry that creating tape backups/etc of computers, and copies of so…

WRT #2, note that the relevant section of 17 USC §117 was written in 1980 - at the time, most software was distributed on media like floppy discs or tape which could easily be accidentally overwritten or damaged by faulty equipment. Creating personal backups of purchased software was already standard practice for many users; I think it's this sort of usage that the law was primarily meant to protect. Later applications like allowing users to backup computer hard drives with copyrighted software installed on them were a happy accident.

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#147

Post by flutas »

elicksaur wrote: post #131
Kye wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't lawyers usually advise their clients to stop talking about it when they're sued? Or is that one of those cliches that isn't true

Definitely true and all of his communication - this thread, he’s given some interviews, etc. is very odd for a legal strategy.

Right, this all feels like (and I'm not trying to be rude with this, I'm speaking from experience) a mental break. Or he's got some sort of vendetta that he feels burning everything down is worth it over.

Some of his comments from the other day on reddit have already been used in this very lawsuit, you'd think he would know to shut the hell up at this point if it's #2.

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#148

Post by bigiain »

pier25 wrote: post #35
chiefalchemist wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's any three things, it's about money, money, and money. Zooming out a bit, Automattic acquired Tumblr and like all those before it seems to be choking on it. Competitors like Wix, Squarespace, WebFlow and Shopify are all nipping at WordPress' marketshare. I don't know what WordPress.com's stats look like, but blogging is out of sytle. New cool kids want the new black. That is to be social media influencers. Alo…

> blogging is out of sytle OTOH maybe the majority of WP users are not blogging. It's anecdotal but I know about a dozen WP users first-hand (and maintain a couple of those installations) and none of them use it for blogging. It's mostly for marketing websites and shops with WooCommerce.

Work has about 25 clients who use WordPress. Not a single one of them "blogs". WordPress is a decent-enough CMS, all those clients are just running websites they can edit themselves. The big advantage of offering them WordPress if having a huge talent pool of people they can contract or employ who know how to publish using it, and a huge wealth of readily available tutorials and training material for them too learn how to do that themselves.

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#149

Post by dangafee »

JimDabell wrote: post #136
photomatt wrote: post #57

Howdy, Matthew Charles Mullenweg from the lawsuit here. One thing I'm surprised they disclosed is on page 35 that Heather Brunner at WP Engine was interviewing for a job at Automattic. That's why we were spending so much time together 1:1 without her team there in the meetings I posted here: https://automattic.com/2024/10/01/wpe-terms/ They lied that it was to run WordPress.com, though, she wanted to be the Executive…

Even if that were true, what relevance does it have to the trademark dispute? It just seems like you want to hurt her personally.

[flagged]

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#150

Post by photomatt »

spellsaidwrong wrote: post #125
photomatt wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn't she share messages that prove she declined a WordPress.com job in 2022? You're holding me to a different standard. I'm here, I'm talking to journalists. They're not.

The question you need to ask yourself is whether you _should_ talk to journalists during a legal matter, instead of trying to fight the court of public opinion.

I'm very comfortable with the truth of everything being public, it's on our side. The legal case will drag out for years.
Post reply on HN