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]

#261

Post by kstrauser » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:04 AM UTC

bigiain wrote: post #216

cdolan wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For you: See paragraphs 32 and 33

Yeah. I foresee a possible hilarious outcome here. Matt wins this case, having the court determine the trademarks are "worth" so much that WPEngine - one out of thousands of WP hosting companies - owes licence fees of 10mil per year. Lets ballpark that at a billion dollar a year in licence fees worth of revenue, maybe 5 or 10 billion value. The IRS then steps in and "Al Capones" Matt and Automattic for tax evasion by…

Whoa. I’m bookmarking this for later. That seems way too plausible to my not-a-lawyer ears.

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

#262

Post by wokedang » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:05 AM UTC

isiahl wrote: post #245

For the record, since I’m seeing it a lot in this thread: Green names = new account

[flagged]

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

#263

Post by dmix » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:07 AM UTC

tock wrote: post #221

Who pay's for this legally? Automattic or Matt personally?

Lists defendants as:

> AUTOMATTIC INC., a Delaware corporation; and MATTHEW CHARLES MULLENWEG, an individual

Considering he controls Automattic as chairman and probably most voting rights he could probably make that choice himself. Besides maybe some legal filings he has to do personally paperwork-wise, maybe with his own lawyer.

It's up to you how much effort you spend defending yourself. As long as the board/investors aren't too bothered by it.

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

#264

Post by pclmulqdq » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:08 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #252

pclmulqdq wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe WPEngine is actually larger than Automattic. This is an attempt to get the bigger (and likely better) company to pay the bills of a company that took a bit too much VC money and now needs the revenue to support it.

Does Tumblr make Automattic much money?

I doubt that a website they bought for $3 million from Yahoo is a significant contributor to their net income.

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

#265

Post by dataspun » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:08 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!

I’m with you Matt! I like your strategy here.

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

#266

Post by LordAtlas » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:08 AM UTC

flutas wrote: post #132

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.

> 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. So are you now using company resources for personal projects (as they point out, you constantly have claimed that the .org domain is your personal domain) as well as for non profit org projects? Doesn't exactly sound... beneficial to investors interests.

Matt is leaving so much evidence against himself that he's practically doing opposing counsel's job for them.

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

#267

Post by jonnypants83 » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:08 AM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #80

photomatt wrote: post #57

Howdy, 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…

So out of a 98 page document this is the part you chose to focus on. An aspect that literally no one could care less about. Bizarre.

to be fair I think it's the most damning part for him as a person

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

#268

Post by mthoms » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:10 AM UTC

JimDabell wrote: post #105

photomatt wrote: post #74

Earlier 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?

The source for that figure is literally "random person on twitter".

I'm not even joking. Matt reposted it earlier today.

https://x.com/sandro_groganz/status/1841437394236489874

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

#269

Post by jonnypants83 » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:11 AM UTC

batuhanicoz wrote: post #173

rideontime wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any practical difference between transferring ownership of the trademark to Automattic vs. granting them an exclusive license that they're able to sublicense?

As I understand it, WordPress Foundation's board can revoke the license if Automattic is no longer a good custodian of the brand. It makes sure even if Automattic is no longer in good hands, the Foundation can protect the WordPress brand from Automattic. (I work at Automattic but did not specifically checked the details of the trademark agreement)

as I understand it the foundation board is matt and two people matt chose.

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

#270

Post by mthoms » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 4:13 AM UTC

photomatt wrote: post #74

photomatt wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Matt you literally got that figure from a random person on Twitter early today. Remember? You re-tweeted it.

https://x.com/sandro_groganz/status/1841437394236489874

https://imgur.com/a/L9OrWct

Please get a lawyer.