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

181–190 of 717 posts

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

#181

Post by fhdsgbbcaA »

dangrossman wrote: post #107
Mystery-Machine wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you're trying to get WP Engine to pay for "WordPress" trademark, by contributing back to open-source, because you feel they should, since it made them rich, I was wondering how many open-source projects did Automattic contribute to financially? Aside from WordPress, I'm sure you stand on the shoulders of giants such as Linux, nginx, MySQL, JavaScript libraries (or maybe you should call it ECMAScript, because yo…

They're listed as a sponsor on the PHP Foundation website.

That alone should be a crime.

(/s, PHP the language isn’t so bad, it’s spaghetti code like WP that gives it a bad name)

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

#182

Post by duskwuff »

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?

The only major difference I can think of would be that the license to A8C could be revocable. But that doesn't make any practical difference, especially since A8C / WPOrg have a hand-in-glove relationship.

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

#183

Post by rideontime »

batuhanicoz wrote: post #173
rideontime wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

The lawsuit asserts pretty vehemently that it's "irrevocable."

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

#184

Post by felizuno »

After some seriously bad experiences with them I hope WPEngine loses their shirt. WRT their headless tooling the advertising versus the reality is insane. They held one of our clients hostage asking for $10k/month, we left for Kinsta for low hundreds per month and have had nothing but performance improvements and great support. I frankly don't like WordPress at all and don't really care about this lawsuit, but was burned so bad by WPEngine I can't help but stop by and say bad things about them.

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

#185

Post by tky »

zambiboy wrote: post #135
photomatt wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silver Lake and WPE's legal attacks may impact my ability to provide free services on WordPress.org in the future, especially things like Slack or forums that are grounds for discovery. I hope not, though. Going to fight this with everything I have.

[flagged]

Welcome to the fray, and congrats on your reply being wonderfully written. Matt would be wise to take your advice.

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

#186

Post by fhdsgbbcaA »

Mystery-Machine wrote: post #87
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…

Since you're trying to get WP Engine to pay for "WordPress" trademark, by contributing back to open-source, because you feel they should, since it made them rich, I was wondering how many open-source projects did Automattic contribute to financially? Aside from WordPress, I'm sure you stand on the shoulders of giants such as Linux, nginx, MySQL, JavaScript libraries (or maybe you should call it ECMAScript, because yo…

To be fair I bet a good chunk of them use, or have used, Wordpress.

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

#187

Post by chris_wot »

photomatt wrote: post #150
spellsaidwrong wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Literally everybody is telling you to STFU. The problem as I see it, is that you might feel incredibly confident in your case, but you are so close to things that you have convinced yourself of your own righteousness.

That’s not necessarily reality, and you are not as righteous as you believe. Even if you are - your words could be misconstrued.

I cannot understand why your legal team is not advising you to stop making public comments. Or perhaps they are, and you aren’t listening to them? Either way, you are being incredibly foolish.

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

#188

Post by caseysoftware »

DannyBee wrote: post #141
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

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…

^ THIS.

Not a lawyer but have been at some major companies when legal stuff goes down. Most have told us:

"hey, there's a thing going on. Do not talk about it, don't reference it, don't 'correct' people. If anyone asks you for comment, send them to us"

I've been deposed and it sucks. It's exceptionally stressful, even if you're not the target in the situation.

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

#189

Post by bigiain »

lolinder wrote: post #164
jameslk wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The damage to your reputation comes because pressing the nuclear button even once is an unhinged thing to do. The reputational damage is because once you've pressed it once we consider it more likely that you'll press it again because you've shown yourself to be the kind of person who presses that button.

Yep. We no all know not to trust anything that Matt or any of his businesses or non-profits are involved with.

Unless WordPress, both the open source codebase and the plugin/theme publishing/distribution channels, are completely free of Matt's influence - they are now a serious risk any business using Wordpress needs to address and mitigate.

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

#190

Post by shabgzer »

cdolan wrote: post #152
shabgzer wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

I used to care about this stuff and thought it meant my opponent was weak Then you learn its not important and in fact its likely a red herring to make the defense think the plaintiff is careless

> I used to care about this stuff and thought it meant my opponent was weak

Me too, I'm no longer the grammar nazi I used to be. It still comes across as sloppy though.

> likely a red herring to make the defense think the plaintiff is careless

That's interesting!

Post reply on HN