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

251–260 of 717 posts

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

#251

Post by _heimdall »

mysecretaccount wrote: post #215
geerlingguy wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless, I'd take some time and go offline, instead of posting reactionary comments on HN right now.

He seems rather level-headed to me. I would rather a CEO address this lawsuit candidly personally.

Have you ever been party to or close to an important legal proceeding?

Anything said and documented prior to the hearing will be combed through. Even tiny inconsistencies will be cherry picked and entered as evidence to raise doubt of the claims made.

I'm all for the sentiment behind a CEO addressing ongoing lawsuits candidly, but in reality its just a bad idea. Statements made without being fully vetted by council, with the context of all other statements already made, will inevitably have issues that could throw a wrench in the case.

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

#252

Post by dmix »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #100
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…

I believe WPEngine is actually larger than Automattic. This is an attempt to get the bigger (and likely better) company to pay the bills of a company that took a bit too much VC money and now needs the revenue to support it.

Does Tumblr make Automattic much money?

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

#253

Post by holywtfm »

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…

[dead]

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

#254

Post by snowwrestler »

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.

Matt doesn’t own the trademark, the Wordpress Foundation does. Losing a lawsuit to WP Engine would not change that.

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

#256

Post by dmix »

csa wrote: post #28
DataDive wrote: post #20

That's what going "nuclear" looks like ... I guess Mullenweg found out. Sadly, instead of supporting open source with $5 million, they each will spend 10 million on lawyers.

> Sadly, instead of supporting open source with $5 million, they each will spend 10 million on lawyers. I think both sides more or less see this as a case of standing up against a bully — they may lose out in the short run (in terms of money), but they think that they will discourage future bullying by fighting back. I’m not sure if either side is right, but that’s why they both drew a line in the sand, imho.

Ignoring the executive drama (on both sides) it is in bad taste to build WPEngine off an Open Source project and barely contribute back to it.

It's probably a case where their version is so heavily customized they don't spend much time on the fundamentals. But still. I wonder if that had a petty rationale as well. Relationships are important in business.

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

#257

Post by pc86 »

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

At first the idea that a $1000/hr associate planted a typo or two intentionally made me laugh but the more I think about it the more I think that's exactly what someone playing 4D chess with a lawsuit like this might do.

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

#258

Post by favorited »

mysecretaccount wrote: post #215
geerlingguy wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless, I'd take some time and go offline, instead of posting reactionary comments on HN right now.

He seems rather level-headed to me. I would rather a CEO address this lawsuit candidly personally.

Any lawyer would tell him it's a bad idea (as has happened in this thread!), but I'm glad you think it's a good idea.

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

#259

Post by caseysoftware »

DannyBee wrote: post #219
caseysoftware wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ 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.

Right. The best case scenario here is that Rachel (or one of her associates more likely) takes every single sentence Matt has written here, or anywhere else, tonight, and cross-checks it against every other sentence or fact he's claimed before. Or that his company has claimed. or the foundation has claimed. or .... Then at the deposition, they will then ask a lot of hard, uncomfortable questions about every single in…

Does similar apply to some of the Automattic employees who have been talking everywhere?

Is there a point where it could switch from "a bunch of people running their mouths" to "a coordinated harassment campaign against WP Engine and its customers"?

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

#260

Post by dataspun »

3np wrote: post #220
photomatt wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What I think you don't realize is, the minor discrepancies in statements of facts are inconsequential in the court of opinon. Even if (which TBH don't find implausible at all) everything you said and posted is true and I agree in principle, that doesn't resolve the issues around CoI and they way you have been communicating over the last couple of weeks, including the WPConf bombshell and the abrupt discontinuation of…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN