Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by angoragoats » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:55 AM UTC

photomatt wrote: post #115

Mystery-Machine wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why you don't share it? You said there's much more emails and messages, but you never shared any. Why not?

Why doesn't she share messages that prove she declined a WordPress.com job in 2022? You're holding me to a different standard. I'm here, I'm talking to journalists. They're not.

At least on this site, you may be “here” but you’re not responding meaningfully to most of the questions/comments posed to you. This seems more like a weird approach to PR than any kind of attempt to clarify or justify your position.

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

#152

Post by cdolan » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:55 AM UTC

shabgzer wrote: post #129

pclmulqdq wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your response to this complaint is going to look very interesting. Also, a note for the audience: Quinn Emanuel is one of the premier (and most expensive) litigation firms in the US. Partners in their litigation department run $2000/hour or more. Associates cost almost $1000/hour. WPEngine apparently has deep pockets.

That $1000+/hr apparently does not guarantee great proofreading. Already found two typos and am not even a quarter of the way through: - Page 12: "wordrpess.org" - Page 17: "fundamental principal"

I used to care about this stuff and thought it meant my opponent was weak

Then you learn its not important and in fact its likely a red herring to make the defense think the plaintiff is careless

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

#153

Post by Terretta » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:56 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #72

photomatt wrote: post #66

Earlier 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 .

> fork or modify software

He mentioned "trademarks".

This phrase is messy: "forking WooCommerce".

There's a likely fracture between the two words.

One might have a right to fork source, while one might not have a right to mark and trade what was changed under the same trademark.

Similarly, a source license might require prominently disclosing changes made to source, such as redirecting an affiliate support stream from a trademark owner's account to one's own account, while it might be trademarks that decide whether one can still call this permissibly edited thing the same name or let users think it's the same thing.

To be clear, I have no idea what rights or agreements are at play in this particular situation, just noting these are not the same rights.

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

#154

Post by mplewis » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:56 AM UTC

photomatt wrote: post #93

pclmulqdq wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your response to this complaint is going to look very interesting. Also, a note for the audience: Quinn Emanuel is one of the premier (and most expensive) litigation firms in the US. Partners in their litigation department run $2000/hour or more. Associates cost almost $1000/hour. WPEngine apparently has deep pockets.

Just wait!

Hi Matt. I wanted to ask, do you think that the actions you've taken will improve the WordPress community in the long term? What do you think are the likely outcomes for WordPress users and contributors, regardless of how this conflict ends?

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

#155

Post by DannyBee » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:56 AM UTC

photomatt wrote: post #92

wging wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what page 35 says at all. Check out page 36: > 92. Mullenweg’s premise was false, as WPE’s CEO had never interviewed with or negotiated a job offer with Automattic. To the contrary, back in 2022 Automattic had asked if she would be interested in running wordpress.com, but she politely declined. (edit: I have no idea who is right, but it's just not correct to read page 35 as saying that)

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 up anyway.

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

#156

Post by fhfhfhjfnfnfmf » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:56 AM UTC

jameslk wrote: post #26

sys13 wrote: post #10

What's sad here is that this dispute isn't likely to make Wordpress any better, but rather send money to lawyers and reduce enthusiasm for the OSS project.

I’m an arm length removed from all this drama having not used Wordpress in a while, but to be honest this opinion feels overblown. To an outsider, it just looks like some legal issue between two entities irrelevant to my concerns on whether I’d use or contribute to Wordpress in the future. Something that happens between corporations all the time My guess is there will be some settlement, one party will walk away with…

You’re welcome to your opinion, but my company is in the market for a large enterprise CMS management contract, and this situation has taken every WordPress option off the table due to uncertainty about the business and technical stability of the ecosystem. I highly doubt we’re the only ones feeling that way.

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

#157

Post by ensignavenger » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:57 AM UTC

jameslk wrote: post #32

threeseed wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> irrelevant to my concerns This is very relevant to anyone that cares about open source. Companies being able to host any OSS without the threat of a trademark dispute is vital to the software industry.

Kind of a similar situation as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian%E2%80%93Mozilla_tradema... This didn’t kill Mozilla in the end or really affect the OSS community for Firefox or Debian

Mozilla didn't cut Debian users off from the plugin ecosystem or any other Mozilla services.

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

#158

Post by duskwuff » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:57 AM UTC

jameslk wrote: post #32

threeseed wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> irrelevant to my concerns This is very relevant to anyone that cares about open source. Companies being able to host any OSS without the threat of a trademark dispute is vital to the software industry.

Kind of a similar situation as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian%E2%80%93Mozilla_tradema... This didn’t kill Mozilla in the end or really affect the OSS community for Firefox or Debian

I don't think there was ever any expectation that the Firefox/Iceweasel trademark dispute would "kill" either organization. About the most serious it got, IIRC, was some heated discussions on the Debian bug tracker; there were never any legal threats involved, and the situation was ultimately resolved to everyone's satisfaction by the name change.

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

#159

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:58 AM UTC

photomatt wrote: post #61

lolinder wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He claimed in an interview there's context to the texts that makes it look better, but he hasn't actually released that context, just said that it exists and he wishes WP Engine would [0]. I'm having a hard time imagining context that would make this not extortion, and if there really is context that makes it better I'm unsure why he's not releasing it himself. He's certainly not gone into no-comment-on-legal-matters…

What would you like me to answer? I haven't doxxed any private texts from other parties like they have. I've only been releasing things I've said or sent.

[deleted]

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

#160

Post by 2Gkashmiri » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:58 AM UTC

fhfhfhjfnfnfmf wrote: post #138

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]

shh... let him talk. don't scare him off