Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 212 posts

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

#31

Post by PKop »

semiquaver wrote: post #16
lolinder wrote: post #13

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.

Why is this relevant? Who want's "summaries" in the comments? We can all copy and paste ourselves, so spamming this nonsense is useless.

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

#32

Post by lolinder »

rglover wrote: post #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.

I've often wondered if his emphasis on how private equity was ruining WordPress was him telegraphing his frustration with his own investors at Black Rock while technically abiding by his contract with them. It's interesting to consider that his performance could have been a type of malicious compliance with their demands—going so far overboard that he intentionally destroys the whole ecosystem as a kind of revenge.

It's probably more likely he just went nuts, but it's fun as a head canon.

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

#33

Post by Havoc »

minimaxir wrote: post #2

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.

Pretty sure everyone except Matt saw that one coming

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

#34

Post by myst1c »

rglover wrote: post #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.

No, Matt is just a classic CEO exhibiting symptoms of narcissist personality disorder who's now getting served in court and doesn't realise how much he earned it.

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

#35

Post by rglover »

myst1c wrote: post #34
rglover wrote: post #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.

No, Matt is just a classic CEO exhibiting symptoms of narcissist personality disorder who's now getting served in court and doesn't realise how much he earned it.

Sure seems like it.

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

#36

Post by bravetraveler »

lolinder wrote: post #32
rglover wrote: post #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.

I've often wondered if his emphasis on how private equity was ruining WordPress was him telegraphing his frustration with his own investors at Black Rock while technically abiding by his contract with them. It's interesting to consider that his performance could have been a type of malicious compliance with their demands—going so far overboard that he intentionally destroys the whole ecosystem as a kind of revenge. I…

As amusing as that thought is... I think he could have done that without misrepresenting [the 'contracts' of] open source software so readily.

He stood to gain from this little knife twist, we all may still lose. Who knows what misconceptions were born/the downstream effects. WPEngine was never under any obligation to Matt himself/Automattic/WordPress/the Foundation [whatever distinction - if any - that may offer!]... outside of the license.

I don't believe it's a question of distance overboard, it started there! To quote Kendrick: "colonizer"

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

#37

Post by Brian_K_White »

talldayo wrote: post #3
minimaxir wrote: post #2

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.

Why intercept them? I don't want douchebags like that to succeed in their douchebaggery. I want them to mouth off.

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

#38

Post by myst1c »

rglover wrote: post #35
myst1c wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Matt is just a classic CEO exhibiting symptoms of narcissist personality disorder who's now getting served in court and doesn't realise how much he earned it.

Sure seems like it.

I agree with the theory about him telegraphing the frustration with his investors through his accusations of the fight against "evil private equity." That is so, so typical. Enough accusations form a whole letter of confession with these kind of people.

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

#39

Post by legitster »

lolinder wrote: post #32
rglover wrote: post #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.

I've often wondered if his emphasis on how private equity was ruining WordPress was him telegraphing his frustration with his own investors at Black Rock while technically abiding by his contract with them. It's interesting to consider that his performance could have been a type of malicious compliance with their demands—going so far overboard that he intentionally destroys the whole ecosystem as a kind of revenge. I…

> his own investors at Black Rock

Blackrock does not at all operate the same as a private equity and it's a huge pet peeve of mine when people lump them in together. Usually they are confusing Blackrock with Blackstone.

All Blackrock does is manage wealth and investments on behalf of individual clients. One of the ways they do this is by sticking private assets into funds for their clients. It's more akin to Vanguard than anything to do with private equity. There's no reason to believe BlackRock would be breathing down their necks when all they do is broker the funds on behalf of their clients.

Automattic DOES have private equity backers though like Tiger Global, Insight, ICONIQ, and more.

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

#40

Post by taytus »

rglover wrote: post #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.

I would say, negative ROI at this point.
Post reply on HN