Live data from Hacker News

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

courtlistener.com

121–130 of 212 posts

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

#121
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Congrats, you're one of today's lucky 10000: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 Also worth reading the poster's follow-up years later and the ensuing discussion. Graeme's observation about the significance of the comment is super important: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16661824

Time for another episode of "The Case for 9224" (not criticizing you! it's just my hobby, apparently)

That comment has gotten a bum rap over the years. The commenter was trying to be helpful with Dropbox's YC application (that's what "app" meant on HN in 2007). Back then, file synchronization was widely thought to be a solution-in-search-of-a-problem. I've been trying for years to get people to understand this (starting at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229275, then https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), even though I know you can't argue with the internet.

The comment only became infamous years later [1, 2], after Dropbox was clearly a success—so this is a case of hindsight. If people would only read all three comments, instead of stopping at the first, they'd see that the exchange was pleasant and successful [3]. But a meme is more fun. It didn't exist, so it had to be invented! [4]

Compare that with the other infamous-HN-comment-from-2007, "did you win the Putnam" [5], which got pilloried in real time. No hindsight fallacy there!

If the hivemind had empathy (which alas it does not), people would stop to consider how they'd feel about getting publicly mocked over decades for something they posted with good intentions at age 22 [6]. Alas, this is how the internet works—not much we can do about it. It's amazing, though, what a good sport BrandonM has been about it all this time. That part of the story is actually real, so we should celebrate that too.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6138488 (August 2013, i.e. 6 years later) seems to be the earliest reference on HN itself.

[2] April 5, 2007: "Show HN, Dropbox" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6625306 (Oct 2013)

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9272 from Drew, and then https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9479

[4] https://www.whitman.edu/VSA/trois.imposteurs.html

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079, but don't miss the witty and graceful concession (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35350)

[6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16661824

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

#122
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how many people (including myself) told him to stop talking about the case on Hacker News. He never listened.

Wasn't it good that he kept talking though? Sorry for being crass, but I'd prefer him loosing this case.

[flagged]

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

#123

I hope Matt considers placing all the community resources of Wordpress into the foundation, including Wordpress.org, constituting an actual board, contributing funds, and setting up a governance and contribution system that matches the open ethos of the license and community. I think this is an area that Drupal gets right, and Dries wrote an interesting post about it in October: https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker…

Advocating, in other words, the creation of a sort of

Automattic for the People

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

#125

Can anyone here summarize the legal principle involved here? Why does Matt legally have to provide services to people he doesn't want to, even if he's morally wrong or generally being an asshole? To my non-lawyer and only-watching-from-the-sidelines self, the ACF situation seems more clearly actionable, but the other things are very interesting.

“Tortious interference” is wrongful interference in others’ contractual or business relationships. Wordpress does not have to provide free services to anyone in particular, only to honor their legal agreements and treat their users equally. In this case they did not; they took action specifically to damage WPEngine.

Matt may even be morally correct in some ways, but that doesn’t give him the right to use his position as Wordpress leader to damage the business of someone who competes with Automattic.

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

#126
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't it good that he kept talking though? Sorry for being crass, but I'd prefer him loosing this case.

Agreed.

But that's a weird thing to do. Why advise people to do stuff detrimental to the world?

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

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Yeah, they even showed they knew what the person meant. They were curious about why the person chose that particular word as it’s occurred frequently enough to make them wonder how/why it happens.

If you know the answer I’d be happy to hear it.

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

#129

I hope Matt considers placing all the community resources of Wordpress into the foundation, including Wordpress.org, constituting an actual board, contributing funds, and setting up a governance and contribution system that matches the open ethos of the license and community. I think this is an area that Drupal gets right, and Dries wrote an interesting post about it in October: https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker…

Advocating, in other words, the creation of a sort of Automattic for the People

He would argue that Matty got a raw deal.

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

#130
post #100

As much as the US justice system is deeply, deeply flawed, it is one of the few places where very wealthy people ever hit the "find out" stage after fucking around. Some recent examples, apart from this case, certainly include SBF going to prison, Elon Musk being forced to buy Twitter, Alex Jones' enormous civil judgment, and so on. I'm not saying I have faith in the system, exactly, especially when it tends to only…

Alex Jones' loss of infowars has been rejected by the judge, who seems intent on handing it to the assets Jones transferred to his parents to shield them instead. You might want to reevaluate.

That's not an accurate description of what happened, and in any case, I was referring to the massive approximately $1 billion judgement against Jones, which isn't going anywhere regardless.
Post reply on HN