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

51–60 of 212 posts

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

#51

Post by kbarmettler »

legitster wrote: post #39
lolinder wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you very much for this clarification!

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

#52

Post by pclmulqdq »

legitster wrote: post #39
lolinder wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People often confuse BlackRock, an asset manager, with Blackstone, which is a private equity firm. However, I doubt Blackstone counts low enough to have bought part of Automattic. Blackstone also owns a considerable portion of BlackRock.

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

#53

Post by pclmulqdq »

legitster wrote: post #6

TL;DR: This is a huge verdict against Automattic. To get an injunction like this is a really high bar - you have to prove that you have a winnable case AND that you/the public is actively being harmed right now and it can't wait until trial. The injunction covers almost everything relevant - returning ACF, taking down the website tracker, removing the checkbox, etc. Basically return everything as it was before Matt b…

This is a huge sign that the case against Matt is a slam dunk. The writing in injunctions like this is indicative of the court's thinking based on the pleadings, and they have basically regurgitated the complaint while adding on more evidence from Matt being an ass on social media, which suggests that the judge has a strong preference.

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

#54

Post by jrflowers »

legitster wrote: post #39
lolinder wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I like how confident this post is.

Blackrock absolutely has private equity operations which they do not hide even a little bit

> Private equity is a core pillar of BlackRock’s alternatives platform. BlackRock’s Private Equity teams manage USD$41.9 billion in capital commitments across direct, primary, secondary and co-investments.

https://www.blackrock.com/institutions/en-us/strategies/alte...

They also do more traditional asset management, but saying they “do not operate at all the same as a private equity” is like saying that Jack In The Box “does not operate at all like a taco place” despite the fact that you can buy a taco at every one of their locations.

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

#55

Post by smsm42 »

minimaxir wrote: post #46
legitster wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://ma.tt/2024/10/first-amendment/ The lawyer thing was hilarious. Someone actually claiming to be his lawyer was on the HN threads and anytime he was asked a question the response was a version of "Oh, I hadn't heard about this. I can't answer that."

> After this post, I will refrain from personally commenting on the WP Engine case until a judge rules on the injunction. Well, a judge did indeed rule on the injuction. He just retweeted this tweet about the case: https://x.com/brian_essig/status/1866640985842692452 > This is actually bullshit. Agree with him or not, the court is forcing an open source maintainer into providing services to a user. What’s next, a com…

That's not an accurate description. An accurate description is that the court is ordering an open source maintainer to stop treating one particular user in a hostile and exclusionary manner. Now, you can object to that too, but there's a serious difference. It's like fixing a bug, but intentionally excluding some particular user from getting the bug fix - it's not the same as fixing a bug. Fixing a bug anew requires additional work, and forcing somebody in un-contracted work is usually hard. Allowing a user to access the bug fix everybody else can access requires just stopping being a jerk, no surprise the court is much more willing to grant such kind of relief.

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

#56

Post by ivraatiems »

unsnap_biceps wrote: post #30
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.

Matt hasn't commented here in 57 days. I wonder what changed from, paraphrased, my lawyer okayed this communication[1] and now. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41726961

Almost certainly the lawyer either A) did NOT ok it, B) OK'd it and then realized that was a huge mistake and reneged, C) was replaced by a different lawyer who made it very clear it was an awful idea.

Matt is pretty clearly a terrible client from a client control perspective. He's simply not good at doing anything but exactly what he wants to do.

As I have said elsewhere, he is now in this situation solely due to his own actions, having gained almost nothing and lost a lot. He'll lose more if this goes to trial.

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

#57

Post by pessimizer »

I think this is fair. I think wordpress had every right to cut WPEngine off, but

1) the fact that subbing in his fork of their plugin killed already purchased "pro" user features without warning was an illegitimate attack on the "pro" customers themselves (who probably have a case against him personally),

2) the pretense that he was doing it for "security reasons" because there was an exploit (every single part of everything about wordpress has an exploit in a random month) shows that he thought he was doing something unjustifiable; he should have been clear and open about why he was forking, and not do anything that broke people's installs, and

3) the behind-the-scenes harassment was just over the top. He should have just made his demand, and when they turned it down, sent a follow up explaining how he was going to cut off access so they could coordinate doing it cleanly. Instead he was intentionally optimizing for chaos and saying this in private communications over and over again.

He could have done almost all of the same things, and just refused to update "pro" users to the fork and instead refer them to WPEngine's alternative setup. Instead he ranted and raved ominously behind the scenes, trying to make it as clear as possible that this was extortion when in essence it wasn't. It was all of the fake snarkiness in public and in private, attempts to poach employees, threats to destroy the company, and insinuations of security problems that made it extortion.

WPE is going to win this because Mullenweg seemingly has no ability to emotionally self-regulate. Real teenage swatter vibes. And I think he was in the right, and I think that without all of the crap, they'd probably have backed down and started contributing.

They'll probably end up getting a remedy where he has to help them set up and maintain their alternative plugin directory, he might have to pay them damages, and he might even end up having to allow everyone use of the mark freely. Then what does he have? He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

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

#58

Post by neilv »

jcranmer wrote: post #7

> Here, Mullenweg’s “statement that he had the right to disable WPEngine’s account access and to make changes to the ACF plugin for the sake of public safety[,]” see Opp. at 27-28, is belied by the declarations of WPEngine’s executives stating that the claimed vulnerability was minor [...] @photomatt literally screwed himself over by talking about his actions here, when everyone was screaming at him to shut the fuck…

[flagged]

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

#59

Post by legitster »

jrflowers wrote: post #54
legitster wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I like how confident this post is. Blackrock absolutely has private equity operations which they do not hide even a little bit > Private equity is a core pillar of BlackRock’s alternatives platform. BlackRock’s Private Equity teams manage USD$41.9 billion in capital commitments across direct, primary, secondary and co-investments. https://www.blackrock.com/institutions/en-us/strategies/alte... They also do more tradi…

> Our platform takes a holistic approach to investors’ private equity portfolios and is designed to offer strategies and solutions that align with client objectives and deliver persistent outperformance.

I get your point, but again, they are doing this on behalf of clients. And 49b is less than a percent of their holdings. So I would still think of them as a brokerage.

This would be like calling Uber a restaurant company just because they launched UberEats.

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

#60

Post by snowwrestler »

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-problem

Post reply on HN