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

1–10 of 717 posts

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

#2

Post by chuckadams » 

    COMPLAINT FOR:
    (1) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations;
    (2) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations;
    (3) Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq.;
    (4) Attempted Extortion;
    (5) Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code§ 17200, et seq.;
    (6) Promissory Estoppel;
    (7) Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement;
    (8) Declaratory Judgment of Non-Dilution;
    (9) Libel;
    (10) Trade Libel; and
    (11) Slander.
Spicy.

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

#4

Post by [deleted] »

chuckadams wrote: post #2

COMPLAINT FOR: (1) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (2) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; (3) Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq.; (4) Attempted Extortion; (5) Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code§ 17200, et seq.; (6) Promissory Estoppel; (7) Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement; (8) Declaratory Judgment of Non-Dilution; (9) Libel; (10) Trade…

[deleted]

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

#5

Post by [deleted] »

chuckadams wrote: post #2

COMPLAINT FOR: (1) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (2) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; (3) Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq.; (4) Attempted Extortion; (5) Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code§ 17200, et seq.; (6) Promissory Estoppel; (7) Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement; (8) Declaratory Judgment of Non-Dilution; (9) Libel; (10) Trade…

[deleted]

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

#6

Post by talldayo »

It's hard to even imagine what a best-case scenario looks like for Matt at this point. Putting aside the matter of righteousness, his business is pretty much chalked for professional applications at this point. B2B partnerships are done - anyone with lawyers on-staff are going to get shoulder-tapped and asked to find another hosting solution. Smaller customers have all the more reason to bleed out to competitors, and the plugin/theme ecosystem is going to see the writing on the wall better than anyone else. Qui bono? Who is Matt "protecting" from harm, really?

I just don't understand in any sense what the end goal was here. On the one hand, I feel like I must not understand because I lack an emotional connection to the project. In the other hand, I feel like a stoic approach is the only one that makes sense. It's a baffling tempest-in-a-teapot that must have extra details I don't understand. If all this occurred with no hidden motives, it would be a shockingly wasteful decision.

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

#8

Post by [deleted] »

talldayo wrote: post #6

It's hard to even imagine what a best-case scenario looks like for Matt at this point. Putting aside the matter of righteousness, his business is pretty much chalked for professional applications at this point. B2B partnerships are done - anyone with lawyers on-staff are going to get shoulder-tapped and asked to find another hosting solution. Smaller customers have all the more reason to bleed out to competitors, and…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN