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]

#281

Post by FireBeyond » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:30 AM UTC

Arcuru wrote: post #228

JimDabell wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The hosting bills for WordPress.org's plugin repository for instance can't be cheap, god knows how they fund it. The CEO of Cloudflare already offered to host it for free: https://x.com/eastdakota/status/1841154152006627663

Sure now that it's in the news and can give them good PR, but a week ago they weren't the ones paying for it.

You can buy a lot of web hosting for $400M. And with everything here, it also seems like quite a deliberate and calculated move to make sure he personally maintains ownership of WP.org (or else why was it not transferred to the Foundation (also him) when all the trademark stuff was being done?)

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

#282

Post by FireBeyond » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:31 AM UTC

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.

You make it sound like it's a black eye against Kassabian.

In fact, many people believe that absolutely, if he has been lying to the IRS and self-dealing his way into a $400M net worth, then absolutely he deserves to lose the license to that trademark.

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

#283

Post by lolinder » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:31 AM UTC

h4ny wrote: post #275

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…

[Edit 2: could you kindly take some time to explains where you disagree as you downvote this so I can learn? Reading documents like this for the first time pointing out where things don't make sense to me.] > 89. Defendants’ extortion campaign included levying personal attacks against the CEO of WPE for not capitulating to his demands. For instance, on September 26, 2024, Mullenweg gave an interview on the X platform…

This is referencing a different livestream than the one with Theo, they refer to that one separately as a livestream on YouTube. It's confusing because of where the footnote is placed, but if you trace the 46 back up to the top you'll see it refers to a different quote:

> On September 28, 2024, Mullenweg gave an interview to the author of the “This might be the end of WordPress” video blog. Among other statements, Mullenweg acknowledged his retaliatory and vindictive intentions, saying: “They could make this all go away by doing a license. Interesting question is whether, now … you know, maybe more than 8% is what we would agree to now.”46

The X interview is a different one. Matt's been busy.

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

#284

Post by mthoms » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:32 AM UTC

JimDabell wrote: post #194

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…

> The hosting bills for WordPress.org's plugin repository for instance can't be cheap, god knows how they fund it. The CEO of Cloudflare already offered to host it for free: https://x.com/eastdakota/status/1841154152006627663

Don't celebrate yet. It looks more like he's just trying to help Matt out rather than support the community - https://imgur.com/a/6isRMCv

Fun fact: WPEngine is a Cloudflare customer. Automattic is not.

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

#285

Post by JimDabell » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:33 AM UTC

h4ny wrote: post #275

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…

[Edit 2: could you kindly take some time to explains where you disagree as you downvote this so I can learn? Reading documents like this for the first time pointing out where things don't make sense to me.] > 89. Defendants’ extortion campaign included levying personal attacks against the CEO of WPE for not capitulating to his demands. For instance, on September 26, 2024, Mullenweg gave an interview on the X platform…

> > during which he gave the CEO’s personal cell phone number to the interviewer and encouraged him to contact her. She was in fact contacted by the interviewer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUJgahHjAKU

> I watched the whole interview they linked to and don't recall that happening

He admits it here:

> Afterward, I also privately shared with him the cell phone for Heather Brunner, the WP Engine CEO, so she can hop on or debate these points. As far as I’ve heard she hasn’t responded. Why is WP Engine scared of talking to journalists live?

— https://ma.tt/2024/09/on-theprimeagen/

(With the slight discrepancy that he says he did it after the interview, not during, which I’m not sure is a meaningful distinction.)

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

#286

Post by ebcode » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:33 AM UTC

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.

hmm.. no, I don't think it is all on your side, sad to say. I was with you until I read this message you sent to Heather Brunner:

>> If you decline, on Monday morning, I tell Greg Mondres: * Lee's refusal to negotiate terms to resolve our conflict. * Your interviewing with Automattic over the past year. * I will possibly tell the press all of the above.

That's just so obviously threatening and uncalled for. Even if Brunner were considering jumping ship, you shouldn't threaten someone into accepting an offer.

Now, you don't know me from Adam, but I want you to strongly, strongly consider that this thing that you've been afraid of happening, has actually already happened. And that is, that you have become Evil Matt -- with the little horns on your head and everything. And to get back to being Good Matt, you're going to have to let some things go.

"No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it." -- Charles Schulz

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

#287

Post by brokenodo » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:36 AM UTC

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.

It would be unsurprising if someone who named a company after themselves turned out to be a narcissist who couldn’t help themselves.

https://ma.tt/2003/04/hit-diggity/

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

#288

Post by shabgzer » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:37 AM UTC

I'm wondering what any lawyer here on HN has to say about how much of a claim WP Engine has against them being banned from the WP.org plugins repository. My layman's understanding of the law tells me that they have no claim whatsoever; you can't assert rights from something that's provided for free, let alone something so expensive to run. The only claim they may have is related to it being used as a means to extort them, but that is a separate issue.

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

#289

Post by ookblah » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:38 AM UTC

Kye wrote: post #114

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…

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

honestly, just read this and his initial post about the whole issue (content is "sacred" or whatever) and it's clear he's semi-deluded himself into thinking he has massive support and/or more important in the grand scheme of things than he actually is. burned so many bridges and still won't concede anything.

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

#290

Post by lolinder » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:39 AM UTC

kubectl_h wrote: post #278

> One such company that relied on Defendants’ promises was WPE, founded in 2010. WPE is a true champion of WordPress, devoting its entire business to WordPress over other similar open source platforms. In reliance on Defendants’ many promises, WPE invested hundreds of millions of dollars and 14 years of hard work building a successful business to serve that community—only to see the petulant whims of Mullenweg inflic…

Complaints usually are, yes. I'm not a lawyer, but each one I've read has been a bit over the top and it feels like they're written as much for public consumption as they are for the judge. Maybe it's with the jury in mind?