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

171–180 of 717 posts

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

#171

Post by fhfhfhjfnfnfmf »

cdolan wrote: post #145
photomatt wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What blog was this?

Matt’s agents post in so many different places it’s hard to keep track.

Edit: found it. Wow. This guy has the worst lawyers. https://automattic.com/2024/10/02/wordpress-trademarks-a-leg...

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

#172

Post by chris_wot »

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…

Why on earth are you making public comments during a court case?

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

#173

Post by batuhanicoz »

rideontime wrote: post #90
photomatt wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true, will address in court. They made up a lot of things in this.

Is there any practical difference between transferring ownership of the trademark to Automattic vs. granting them an exclusive license that they're able to sublicense?

As I understand it, WordPress Foundation's board can revoke the license if Automattic is no longer a good custodian of the brand.

It makes sure even if Automattic is no longer in good hands, the Foundation can protect the WordPress brand from Automattic.

(I work at Automattic but did not specifically checked the details of the trademark agreement)

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

#174

Post by zambiboy »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #40
pier25 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's .org version of WP. WP.com - Automattic's bread & butter - was the big 2nd gen blogging platform. Yes, agreed WooComm is new. Nonetheless, social media'ing has replaced "I got a website" and "I got a blog."

> Automattic's bread & butter - was the big 2nd gen blogging platform

Its not. Its used for everything from marketing websites to ecommerce. CNN, Reuters etc have their blogs run on it too.

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

#175

Post by [deleted] »

photomatt wrote: post #169
mthoms wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you tell the community: "the most central piece of WordPress’s identity, its name, is now fully independent from any company" ? That's objectively untrue. Period. That was 14 years ago Matt. You mislead the community for 14 years .

The trademark originally belonged 100% to Automattic. It transferred it to the Foundation, and retained the commercial license and the ability to commercially sub-license. The Foundation gave me a license to run WordPress.org. This has all been public, though I agree it's complicated and not widely understood.

[deleted]

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

#176

Post by photomatt »

JimDabell wrote: post #105
photomatt wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it was a few text messages at the end of a months-long negotiation about a licensing deal. We posted the timeline and the final term sheet here: https://automattic.com/2024/10/01/wpe-terms/ WP Engine's business is built on violating the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks, 8% is typical for a franchise fee. They confuse customers in the marketplace who think they're official WordPress. If you watch this stream…

> 8% is typical for a franchise fee I see many WordPress hosts use these trademarks in the same way WP Engine does. How many of them are paying this typical 8% of monthly revenue fee?

Other hosts have contributed significantly to WordPress.org and Automattic over the years, in a variety of arrangements. None have abused the WordPress and WooCommerce trademark as much as WP Engine has, hence our C&D against them.

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

#177

Post by agrocrag »

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.

It feels and looks very similar to when things weren't going well for SBF. Never really stopped talking to the press, giving interviews, etc.

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

#178

Post by cdolan »

bigiain wrote: post #130
photomatt wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, I carry a co2 and carbon monoxide monitor. Co2 where I'm at is 572. I do own a place in Montana, and I meditate several times a day. I have not threatened to take down WordPress.org. WPE's preservation requests do complicate things, legally, though, for the Slack and forums that W.org offers. Both Cloudflare and Fastly have reached out offering CDN services to W.org, which we're considering. Cloudflare also s…

You do realise just how guilty people sound when complaining about preservation requests for discovery during lawsuits? If you're "right" and "on the side of good and freedom", what are you worried about in Slack/forums/whatever? Because everything made public so far in their filing is pretty fucking bad (for you), I can only assume that discovery is gonna reveal some even worse behaviour on your part - or you'd have…

For you:

See paragraphs 32 and 33

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

#179

Post by bigiain »

spellsaidwrong wrote: post #111

I have never seen a more reckless case of CEO behaviour in a long time. I have no idea how the discussions with streamers and now Hacker News, is going to fare for Mullenweg, but I don't think it's good.

[flagged]

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

#180

Post by saagarjha »

dangafee wrote: post #163
DannyBee wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

[flagged]

I would much rather dang moderated this site
Post reply on HN