Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by navigate8310 » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 3:38 AM UTC

jameslk wrote: post #26

sys13 wrote: post #10

What's sad here is that this dispute isn't likely to make Wordpress any better, but rather send money to lawyers and reduce enthusiasm for the OSS project.

I’m an arm length removed from all this drama having not used Wordpress in a while, but to be honest this opinion feels overblown. To an outsider, it just looks like some legal issue between two entities irrelevant to my concerns on whether I’d use or contribute to Wordpress in the future. Something that happens between corporations all the time My guess is there will be some settlement, one party will walk away with…

Matt is usually the lead developer at WP.org you can find his references in almost all changelogs. I still think, attention and resources will be diverted.

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

#232

Post by bigiain » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 3:38 AM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #204

felizuno wrote: post #184

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 bu…

I moved to WPEngine from a self hosted job, money well spent. I've never had a lick of trouble, and even though I'm pretty proficient at hosting LAMP apps, it's much less effort than self-hosting.

Same. Work hosts a bunch of client sites on WPEngine. We only ever had one problematic client who uploaded a heap of high bandwidth video and blew out their disk and bandwidth allocations by over 10x - WPEngine didn't cut them off, and worked with us/them to move their large media assets off the WP install (for reasons, the client went with AWS S3/CloudFront).

We know WPE aren't the cheapest way to host WP, but if a client argues about the difference between a $5/month GoDaddy hosting plan and the $20/month starter plan on WPE - that's a pretty good indicator that they're not a right fit client for us. We have a few smaller agencies we'll hand them over to who are a better fit for them.

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

#233

Post by FireBeyond » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 3:39 AM UTC

photomatt wrote: post #176

JimDabell wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Other hosts have contributed significantly to WordPress.org and Automattic over the years

In reverse order:

1. Why on earth are other hosts obligated to contribute to Automattic, their competitor, just because Automattic also contributes to the open source project?

2. You have, on multiple recent occasions, spelt out unequivocally that WordPress.org is YOU, and not the Foundation. Again, why on earth are WordPress hosts obligated to contribute to you?

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

#234

Post by pclmulqdq » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 3:40 AM UTC

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"

Typos don't really matter in legal complaints, except for looking unprofessional. It would be a waste if my $1000/hour lawyer spent their time proofreading, honestly. The typos also guarantee that I'm getting a real, logical human writing my complaint rather than someone faking it with ChatGPT.

Typos in long-lived documents like contracts, patents, etc. matter quite a bit, by contrast. See eg the second amendment, where billions of dollars have been spent over a few commas.

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

#235

Post by wattwullenberg » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 3:40 AM UTC

photomatt wrote: post #74

photomatt wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you like me to answer? I haven't doxxed any private texts from other parties like they have. I've only been releasing things I've said or sent.

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…

[flagged]

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

#236

Post by mrcwinn » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 3:40 AM UTC

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…

This boils down to something quite simple. WPEngine wants money. Matt wants money too. It’s zero sum.

Matt, free advice. If you really think your commercial product is better (maybe it retains more post history or whatever the case), spend more time selling it.

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

#237

Post by FireBeyond » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 3:41 AM UTC

photomatt wrote: post #61

lolinder wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He claimed in an interview there's context to the texts that makes it look better, but he hasn't actually released that context, just said that it exists and he wishes WP Engine would [0]. I'm having a hard time imagining context that would make this not extortion, and if there really is context that makes it better I'm unsure why he's not releasing it himself. He's certainly not gone into no-comment-on-legal-matters…

What would you like me to answer? I haven't doxxed any private texts from other parties like they have. I've only been releasing things I've said or sent.

> I haven't doxxed any private texts from other parties like they have

You did share their CEO's personal phone number to The Primagen though, did you not?

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

#238

Post by jcranmer » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 3:41 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #38

chuckadams wrote: post #2

COMPLAINT FOR: (1) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (2) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; (3) Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq.; (4) Attempted Extortion; (5) Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code§ 17200, et seq.; (6) Promissory Estoppel; (7) Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement; (8) Declaratory Judgment of Non-Dilution; (9) Libel; (10) Trade…

Of these, the ones that are interesting are basically 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10. The CFAA claim here is actually basically an extortion claim (plus other throwaway general claims) framed in CFAA terms. See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7) This is actually somewhat uncommon to see :) However, it seems likely to be dismissed (without prejudice) or need to be amended since it looks like it doesn't plead the claim properly. "(g)Any person…

A speculation I've heard is that the CFAA is meant to try to get some preliminary injunctive relief.

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

#239

Post by psyopsy » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 3:45 AM UTC

photomatt wrote: post #74

photomatt wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you like me to answer? I haven't doxxed any private texts from other parties like they have. I've only been releasing things I've said or sent.

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…

[flagged]

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

#240

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 3:46 AM UTC

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?

[deleted]