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

241–250 of 717 posts

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

#241

Post by FireBeyond »

ChallengeEup237 wrote: post #226
cdolan wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So wordpress.org is effectively for-profit Why did your legal officer today post in a blog post that its a non-profit?

There are so many legal entities here that appear completely intertwined: The WordPress Foundation, Automattic, Audrey Capital, WordPress Community Support PBC, etc. Conflicts of interest are a problem even if they aren't acted upon. It's going to get ugly.

Right. To me Matt is so so used to using them all almost synonymously that he seems oblivious to the ramifications thereof.

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

#242

Post by jonnypants83 »

ChallengeEup237 wrote: post #226
cdolan wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So wordpress.org is effectively for-profit Why did your legal officer today post in a blog post that its a non-profit?

There are so many legal entities here that appear completely intertwined: The WordPress Foundation, Automattic, Audrey Capital, WordPress Community Support PBC, etc. Conflicts of interest are a problem even if they aren't acted upon. It's going to get ugly.

the statements about the non-profit situation seem especially bad. He'll obviously have his own side of the story, but I'm guessing they didn't misread the tax filings.

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

#243

Post by pclmulqdq »

hashim-warren wrote: post #217

The complaint says Matt has been lying to the IRS and self-dealing. Is this a legal maneuver by Rachel Kassabian to have Matt lose the WordPress trademark? If so, that's deeply sad.

Why is it sad? If he is self-dealing between wordpress.org and Automattic, that's a big no-no. It sure looks from his comments here like he sees the two as one entity.

Also, the man outright said "use 'WP' since we think 'WP' is generic" and then cried "brand confusion" years later. If you want to avoid brand confusion, maybe don't tell people they can use your trademark?

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

#244

Post by mthoms »

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.

I understand the workings of the trademark. The question I asked of you (that you avoided) is why did you claim that the trademark was "fully independent from any company" and that Automattic had "give[n] up control". [0]

That's demonstrably untrue. The assignment on file with the USPTO is clear:

>WordPress Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, ... hereby grants to Automattic Inc., an exclusive, fully-paid, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sublicensable right and license to use and otherwise exploit the trademarks identified in Exhibit A attached hereto...

Why did you lie, Matt?

[0] https://ma.tt/2010/09/wordpress-trademark/

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

#246

Post by psyopsy »

hashim-warren wrote: post #217

The complaint says Matt has been lying to the IRS and self-dealing. Is this a legal maneuver by Rachel Kassabian to have Matt lose the WordPress trademark? If so, that's deeply sad.

Why sad? If he defrauded the government, he’s got bigger problems than losing a trademark.

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

#247

Post by justin66 »

shabgzer wrote: post #143

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 f…

"Generously," perhaps, but "selflessly" is a poor way to characterize any of his behavior.

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

#249

Post by function_seven »

fhfhfhjfnfnfmf wrote: post #171
cdolan wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I love how he explains that “consideration” was conjured from thin air.

I own a car. I want to drive my own car on weekdays. To accomplish this, I give my car to Jimmy, and he promises to let me use it on weekdays?

Using the same analogy as in that post, apparently this is a valid contract with “consideration” because I gave Jimmy my car and, “in return,” he gave me my car back Monday–Friday.

I’m no lawyer, but I can’t imagine that it is illegal to donate a noncommercial license to a nonprofit organization, without contracts and considerations coming into play. But if I’m wrong, and “consideration” is a required element of a transaction like this, I don’t think this wash-sale version of it would pass muster anyway.

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

#250

Post by kstrauser »

photomatt wrote: post #92
wging wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what page 35 says at all. Check out page 36: > 92. Mullenweg’s premise was false, as WPE’s CEO had never interviewed with or negotiated a job offer with Automattic. To the contrary, back in 2022 Automattic had asked if she would be interested in running wordpress.com, but she politely declined. (edit: I have no idea who is right, but it's just not correct to read page 35 as saying that)

She was interviewing November 2023 to January 2024. She declined the WordPress.org role on January 26, 2024. I even invited her to my 40th birthday on Jan 11, another text message she decided not to share.

Were I her lawyer: “oh, so after you invited her to hang out in a private setting, she declined the job?”

That does not help your position. IANAL, but stop talking.

Post reply on HN