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

671–680 of 717 posts

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

#671

Post by jeltz »

posterman wrote: post #488
lolinder wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the allegations in the complaint? Here are some of the texts it says Matt sent: > I have 14 slides so far, working title for the talk: "How Private Equity can Hollow out and Destroy Open Source Communities, a Story in 4 Parts." > I've got quotes from current and former employees, some may even stand up and speak as well. There's the gasoline and matches. And then, while he's on stage: > I'm literally wai…

Since when did relaying employee experience constitute an existential threat to a businesses ability to operate? This forum is littered with people who engage in "threats" as a mode of business every single day.

When you demand money in return for not relaying those experiences? That is when it becomes extortion.

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

#672

Post by rolandog »

photomatt wrote: post #68
mikeyinternews wrote: post #58

I hope Matt can supply his legal team with conversations that would somehow justify his behaviour. From my (incomplete) reading of the complaint, he (Matt) does indeed look very "petulant". It's almost like he's intentionally self-destructing, which is why I hope for his sake that he has more tangible evidence to share, especially after reading section 201.

Yes this is part of their smear campaign, just like their last C&D. They're cherry-picking stuff to try and make me look bad, while not addressing the core issue of their trademark violations. They want me to stop telling their customers about their bad behavior.

[flagged]

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

#673

Post by posterman »

jeltz wrote: post #671
posterman wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when did relaying employee experience constitute an existential threat to a businesses ability to operate? This forum is littered with people who engage in "threats" as a mode of business every single day.

When you demand money in return for not relaying those experiences? That is when it becomes extortion.

Thats a reductive read. I thought this forum was supposed to encourage a higher minded discourse?

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

#674

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

photomatt wrote: post #68
mikeyinternews wrote: post #58

I hope Matt can supply his legal team with conversations that would somehow justify his behaviour. From my (incomplete) reading of the complaint, he (Matt) does indeed look very "petulant". It's almost like he's intentionally self-destructing, which is why I hope for his sake that he has more tangible evidence to share, especially after reading section 201.

Yes this is part of their smear campaign, just like their last C&D. They're cherry-picking stuff to try and make me look bad, while not addressing the core issue of their trademark violations. They want me to stop telling their customers about their bad behavior.

Dude, your "trademark violations" claim is going to get absolutely destroyed in court. I obviously don't have all the details, but I would expect that if you did have more evidence against WPEngine, given how much you're posting in online forums I would expect you would have put forth something that helps your case, and I sure haven't seen it. How can you counter:

1. As their brief makes clear, they have been using the "challenged marks" for over a decade, including a period when you were an investor. You have given no evidence publicly that they changed anything recently - indeed, you publicly stated that the reason for the trademark infringement actions was because you thought they weren't a good contributor to open source, not that they did anything different with the marks.

2. Your recent attempt to trademark "Hosted WordPress" and "Managed WordPress" are pretty bad, and blatant, attempts to rewrite history. If the courts let you trademark this nominative use of a term, it would be a first.

3. Your actions have only targeted WP Engine, not any of the other WordPress hosts that use the marks in the same way.

I definitely am not cherry picking the above - I'm just presenting what I know has been irrefutably announced publicly, and again which I assume you would have already countered if you could given all your other public statements.

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

#675

Post by hoofhearted »

FateOfNations wrote: post #662
hoofhearted wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you able to name of the publishers that you say run massive WP installs? I do know they exist of course, Sony being one. I’m coding up a little something that I feel is more modern and superior compared to WP, and I’d like to learn what their business requirements and use cases are that keep them on WP. Thanks in advance!

Digital First Media/MediaNews Group, one of the largest newspaper publishers in the US, runs its 100+ local newspaper (NY Daily News, Chicago Tribune, Denver Post, etc.) websites on WordPress.

Thank you for the info! This is a solid response :)

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

#676

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

kemayo wrote: post #569
mort96 wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how that's supposed to work. You can't use a trademark to prevent anyone from forking a piece of software whose license allows forking. You can say that other people can't use your trademark in forks, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on here? "Cease and decist from forking or modifying the software" is, again, a different sentence from "cease and decist from using our trademark in your modi…

My understanding of Matt's position, and what that term sheet he posted is talking about, is that he feels that WP Engine needs a trademark license to cover what it's currently doing. He feels that their usage of the marks exceeds what's generally allowed under the "everyone can use it this way" terms that WordPress.org offers. His position isn't just that they can't use the trademark to apply to their forked version…

> The concessions include that they'd agree to not use their GPL-granted right to fork the code.

The point is that including this stipulation (attempting to limit the GPL-granted right-to-fork) appears to be itself against the GPL, and voids Automattic's previously-granted GPL rights.

In other words, if you even attempt to get someone to sign away their GPL granted rights, you lose your own GPL granted rights.

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

#677

Post by lolinder »

posterman wrote: post #673
jeltz wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you demand money in return for not relaying those experiences? That is when it becomes extortion.

Thats a reductive read. I thought this forum was supposed to encourage a higher minded discourse?

Seriously, read the complaint before commenting. What the parent says isn't "a reductive read", it's literally what WP Engine is alleging (with extensive documentation) and Matt is pointedly not denying.

Read the complaint before commenting any further, please.

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

#678

Post by dang »

moonmagick wrote: post #319
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.

[flagged]

You can't attack others like that here, regardless of who they are or how you feel.

We ban accounts that post this way, so please don't do it again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: you did it in at least one other place in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41727582. That's not cool. I'm not going to ban you right now because it doesn't look like we've warned you before, but if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

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

#679

Post by dang »

zambiboy wrote: post #135
photomatt wrote: post #52

Earlier 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]

I assume that you're well intentioned but Internet Psychiatric Diagnosis (IPD) counts as a form of personal attack (in effect, if not intent), and therefore not allowed here.

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a...

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#680

Post by jfdndbqirncnx »

photomatt wrote: post #52
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.

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.

Matt, the Wordpress Foundation (which you control) explicitly lists the Plugin Repository and Theme Repository as Foundation projects, but now you’re saying that they’re your personal projects: https://wordpressfoundation.org/projects/

You’re a compulsive liar.

Post reply on HN