Given Mullenweg's behavior I wish WP Engines and their very capable litigation attorneys nothing but the best of luck, which I doubt very much they will need. Jeez, how to torch a brand's reputation.
Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
301–310 of 717 posts
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#302Howdy, 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
I believe they do, but in the end it’s on the client to decide what they do.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these comments here make it to some of the legal documents we will be reading in the future.
I assume some ignore this advice either because they think they are right, or they are unhinged and they think they know better than everyone.
I’m here for it all, whichever may be the case.
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Matt - i'm not your lawyer, but you should shut up. Employers generally have an obligation to keep personal data confidential, especially sensitive information like a job application. Whether that applies in this particular case or not, i'm not going to offer an opinion, but you really should shut up. I get that it's particularly frustrating and hard to feel like you are being unfairly treated or whatever, but shut u…
Just let the man speak, he probably didn’t listen to his own lawyers why you think he will listen to you?
As the audience, with no horse in this race, I’m glad he keeps talking.
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matt - i'm not your lawyer, but you should shut up. Employers generally have an obligation to keep personal data confidential, especially sensitive information like a job application. Whether that applies in this particular case or not, i'm not going to offer an opinion, but you really should shut up. I get that it's particularly frustrating and hard to feel like you are being unfairly treated or whatever, but shut u…
Just let the man speak, he probably didn’t listen to his own lawyers why you think he will listen to you? As the audience, with no horse in this race, I’m glad he keeps talking.
I understand that. As an uninvolved outsider, this is a first-row seat I don’t usually have. It’s fascinating!
But my better angel wants me to duck tape his mouth shut before he does himself dirty.
Edit: Or if you’re a WPE fan, my better angel says to keep talking! Explain it all away! Share it all!
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#305Earlier 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]
[flagged]
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
The agreement wasn't about their license to the code, it was about their license to the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks. They could agree to not do things allowed under the GPL, like replacing our Stripe attribution, it's their right to. Or not.
"The agreement wasn't about their license to the code," Maybe you misread it (or miswrote it i guess)? it says: "WP Engine will cease and desist from forking or modifying any of Automattic’s, WooCommerce’s, or its affiliates' software (including, but not limited to plugins and extensions) ..." It could not more plainly say that they cannot fork or modify software .
I think what Matt's saying is that they absolutely had the GPL rights to fork and modify the code... but those rights don't include the right to use the trademark. So if they wanted to be able to market themselves as offering WooCommerce(TM), they had to agree to the license, in which they'd have to promise not to use the aforementioned GPL rights.
I am nowhere near knowing enough about trademark law to say whether this is anything even approaching a reasonable use of trademarks.
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#307Earlier 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...
[deleted]
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#308Howdy, 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…
What are you hoping to achieve?
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't think it's a good idea, but it is preferable for me as a bystander trying to understand his position on and the details of the case.
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. I foresee a possible hilarious outcome here. Matt wins this case, having the court determine the trademarks are "worth" so much that WPEngine - one out of thousands of WP hosting companies - owes licence fees of 10mil per year. Lets ballpark that at a billion dollar a year in licence fees worth of revenue, maybe 5 or 10 billion value. The IRS then steps in and "Al Capones" Matt and Automattic for tax evasion by…
I think it was explained elsewhere, but Automattic has the commercial trademark rights, so licensing money wouldn’t be transferred to a non-profit foundation.
Yeah, but according to the filing, Matt had Automattic transfer the ownership of the trademarks to the foundation, they had the foundation grant the exclusive licence back to Automattic.
If those trademarks are asserted to be worth billions, there are presumably reporting and tax obligations for both the ownership transfer and the licence grant agreement.