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

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

wpengine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 717 posts

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

#501

Post by astockwell »

prox wrote: post #330
safety1st wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Matt, great that you're participating here and I'm broadly supportive regarding your concerns with the trademark and WP Engine's conduct. However I do not understand why you chose to make 1.5 million enemies in the WordPress community in one weekend by shutting down their ability to update plugins with zero warning and consequently reducing the security of their websites. To be entirely blunt it's all damage contr…

Well said, I hope that there will be forum to discuss the ethos of these actions and see if there isn’t a better way to go about this, and how we can strengthen the community of open source. An interesting article was written by Dries (Drupal Founder) and others.

Link?

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

#502

Post by pclmulqdq »

lolinder wrote: post #494
pclmulqdq wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jury doesn't usually read the complaint. However, a lot of the words you see as dramatic have specific legal meanings. In this case "relied on promises" is in the language of the tort he is suing over. I don't think the "true champion" sentence has a specific meaning, but it is definitely written to imply that WPE enhanced the value of the WordPress brand.

What about "petulant whims"? I don't think it's just legal language—I've read plenty of court opinions too, some dramatic, some not. Complaints seem particular prone to the dramatic.

I don't think "petulant whims" is legal language (not a lawyer, though). I'm assuming that's dramatization for the judge and the other side.

By the way, the "champion" language I mentioned could actually be trademark-specific language that I'm not aware of.

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

#503

Post by elorm »

blitzar wrote: post #410
cdolan wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you put the typo next to the thing you want to hide to distract the opposition or do you put the typo miles away to draw their attention to something irrelevant?

I can't tell if this is sarcasm but it made me burst out loud and it's probably the funniest thing I've read all week.

Red herrings? People actually believe lawyers set up a 9D chess game in court and move pieces by making typos to distract from facts ?

Lawyers are humans too. I know a bunch of oldies who still don't use a spell checker or anything. They just eyeball it or have associates do it. If you make typos, you fix them on subsequent revisions. If not, too bad.

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

#504

Post by trickyager »

This lawsuit seems to be the prophesized exploding car covered in hammers [1]. The astounding part to me is that it's Matt's behavior itself that's making the car explode multiple times, sending hammers flying everywhere.

[1]: https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/why-are-tumblr-us...

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

#505

Post by edanm »

krisoft wrote: post #430
edanm wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As the audience, with no horse in this race, I’m glad he keeps talking. You really shouldn't, IMO. For one thing, what parent poster is saying is that he might be violating someone's privacy. I get that that's fun from the sidelines, but I certainly don't think we should encourage employers to violate other people's privacy. For another, we have a court system with lots of rules around it for a reason. These thread…

> parent poster is saying is that he might be violating someone's privacy As you say it is terrible, and they should not have done that. Irrespective of the legal outcome it taints them in my eye forever. That being said that particular horse has left the barn already. It is not like us third parties gigling from the sidelines will affect it. > These threads help people form opinions, but the truth is that none of th…

> That is not true. We can hear them out and then apply our logic, look at the things presented and can absolutely evaluate them. We don’t have as strong tools as people in a court case do. For example we can’t subpoena them, nor can we demand discovery. But that is how 99.9% of our interactions are. It is not like we only have to engage our critical faculties when it is about a court case. They have to be always engaged.

You're right, I spoke more strongly than warranted. I was getting at this distinction - in a court case, there are real tools, both legal and investigative, that let you determine truth to a much higher degree than in random internet (or real life) conversations.

What I highly dislike is that the person who is acting responsibly legally, and who is probably acting more responsibly by trusting the court system to determine what should happen, is always the party that doesn't engage in this kind of talk. The side acting irresponsibly is trying to change public perception by sidestepping the actual legal mechanisms here, and we shouldn't usually let them.

(I'm speaking generally, in this case I feel less strongly because a lot of this is public knowledge.)

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

#506

Post by sureIy »

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…

I thought WordPress was just a tool, but that’s not the only tool in the house.

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

#509

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#510

Post by ceejayoz »

vitalychernobyl wrote: post #508

[flagged]

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

Post reply on HN