Live data from Hacker News

WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

courtlistener.com

11–20 of 212 posts

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#11
post #10

Tried to get bond for an amount covering bills for two years; lol. This gives me more hope than most things I've read lately

Makes you wonder if they really thought that would work. I guess it never hurts to shoot for the moon.

+1, something about landing among the stars. I think Matt wanted to be one; this had a very astroturf feel - making himself the champion... and now, lol. But I repeat myself!

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#12
post #3

Yes, they did use Matt's Hacker News comments against him. (p24) The more relevant outcome of WPEngine getting the injuction is in Section F (p40), which includes removing that WordPress login checkbox.

I feel like photomatt's comments are going to be enshrined in the same way the Dropbox one was. He talked up such a huge game but everyone knew he was in the wrong - we need to intercept cocky executives before they incriminate themselves in media res.

Curious as to what was the Dropbox comment? Can you please share or link? Thanks!

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#13
post #5

[flagged]

Oof. This comment originally had an introduction attributing the summary to Claude and immediately got downvoted to oblivion. Now it's been edited to remove the attribution and it's resurrected (edit: gone again, so ignore me).

Unintended perverse incentives...

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#14
Rooted in speculation about why this meltdown occurred in the first place: be very careful about taking money, as well as the amount and who from. My guess from day one is that Matt was put under pressure from investors and this was the only "fix" he saw.

A real shame to see such a great legacy flushed for zero ROI.

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#15
post #3

Yes, they did use Matt's Hacker News comments against him. (p24) The more relevant outcome of WPEngine getting the injuction is in Section F (p40), which includes removing that WordPress login checkbox.

I feel like photomatt's comments are going to be enshrined in the same way the Dropbox one was. He talked up such a huge game but everyone knew he was in the wrong - we need to intercept cocky executives before they incriminate themselves in media res.

> we need to intercept cocky executives before they incriminate themselves in media res.

Please don't, just let them.

Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#16
post #5

[flagged]

Oof. This comment originally had an introduction attributing the summary to Claude and immediately got downvoted to oblivion. Now it's been edited to remove the attribution and it's resurrected (edit: gone again, so ignore me). Unintended perverse incentives...

FWIW, I (a human) read the order and this is a pretty accurate summary.

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#17
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like photomatt's comments are going to be enshrined in the same way the Dropbox one was. He talked up such a huge game but everyone knew he was in the wrong - we need to intercept cocky executives before they incriminate themselves in media res.

I agree if we're talking from the perspective of his lawyers. From the wordpress community perspective, I think we benefited from Matt's extraordinary outspokenness here. It made all the bad acts very easy to bullet point in this injunction!

Maybe he'll have to step back like Linus had a few years ago.

And maybe give the wp.org domain ownership to the Foundation, making WP a bit more reliable and resilient to one's actions.

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oof. This comment originally had an introduction attributing the summary to Claude and immediately got downvoted to oblivion. Now it's been edited to remove the attribution and it's resurrected (edit: gone again, so ignore me). Unintended perverse incentives...

FWIW, I (a human) read the order and this is a pretty accurate summary.

I did as well and yes, it's fine. This is just a meta comment about what we're accidentally training people to do, not a critique of OP.

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#19
post #5

[flagged]

Oof. This comment originally had an introduction attributing the summary to Claude and immediately got downvoted to oblivion. Now it's been edited to remove the attribution and it's resurrected (edit: gone again, so ignore me). Unintended perverse incentives...

[deleted]

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#20
post #5

[flagged]

Oof. This comment originally had an introduction attributing the summary to Claude and immediately got downvoted to oblivion. Now it's been edited to remove the attribution and it's resurrected (edit: gone again, so ignore me). Unintended perverse incentives...

Even without the attribution, it was still pretty clear to me that it was a chatbot-generated summary. No human who understands how the legal procedure works would introduce the summary in that way, as the court order is the preliminary injunction.
Post reply on HN