Earlier quoted context omitted.
To go to Matt’s for profit entity, for his for profit entity to direct as they wish. “I demand you give resources to your for profit competitor for them to use as they wish. And I’ll pretend to be wearing my non-profit, independent hat while demanding it.” Is it any surprise this has gone the way it has?
OR to the non-profit entity.
Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
161–170 of 717 posts
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#162I have never seen a more reckless case of CEO behaviour in a long time. I have no idea how the discussions with streamers and now Hacker News, is going to fare for Mullenweg, but I don't think it's good.
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't lawyers usually advise their clients to stop talking about it when they're sued? Or is that one of those cliches that isn't true
Lawyer here - we do. For very good reason. A. Legally, it cannot possibly help you (whatever happened, happened). However, it can hurt you (inconsistent statements, etc). This is particularly true in colloquial environments like HN. B. While it may be useful reputation/press wise, because anything you do wil be evidence, you should be having someone else do that. C. If you are part of a publicly traded company, you c…
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the two entities completely controls the plugin ecosystem and wielded that control against the other entity (the largest WordPress host except, possibly, Automattic itself) to block them and all of their customers out of the ecosystem over this dispute. That's why this matters to average developers. WordPress is the plugin ecosystem, and messing around with it does as much damage to the WordPress ecosystem as…
The more you press the nuclear button, the more you damage your reputation. I’m of the opinion that the circumstances here are exceptional and rationality will prevail
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]
#166Howdy, Matthew Charles Mullenweg from the lawsuit here. One thing I'm surprised they disclosed is on page 35 that Heather Brunner at WP Engine was interviewing for a job at Automattic. That's why we were spending so much time together 1:1 without her team there in the meetings I posted here: https://automattic.com/2024/10/01/wpe-terms/ They lied that it was to run WordPress.com, though, she wanted to be the Executive…
Don't lawyers usually advise their clients to stop talking about it when they're sued? Or is that one of those cliches that isn't true
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question you need to ask yourself is whether you _should_ talk to journalists during a legal matter, instead of trying to fight the court of public opinion.
I'm very comfortable with the truth of everything being public, it's on our side. The legal case will drag out for years.
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, it was a few text messages at the end of a months-long negotiation about a licensing deal. We posted the timeline and the final term sheet here: https://automattic.com/2024/10/01/wpe-terms/ WP Engine's business is built on violating the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks, 8% is typical for a franchise fee. They confuse customers in the marketplace who think they're official WordPress. If you watch this stream…
> 8% is typical for a franchise fee I see many WordPress hosts use these trademarks in the same way WP Engine does. How many of them are paying this typical 8% of monthly revenue fee?
Source: Matt
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#169Earlier 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.
Why did you tell the community: "the most central piece of WordPress’s identity, its name, is now fully independent from any company" ? That's objectively untrue. Period. That was 14 years ago Matt. You mislead the community for 14 years .
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#170Howdy, Matthew Charles Mullenweg from the lawsuit here. One thing I'm surprised they disclosed is on page 35 that Heather Brunner at WP Engine was interviewing for a job at Automattic. That's why we were spending so much time together 1:1 without her team there in the meetings I posted here: https://automattic.com/2024/10/01/wpe-terms/ They lied that it was to run WordPress.com, though, she wanted to be the Executive…
I am stunned that you're still posting publicly and aggressively about all of this. How have your lawyers okayed any of this?