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

61–70 of 212 posts

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

#61

Post by adolph »

legitster wrote: post #44
unsnap_biceps wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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."

what they’re trying to do is ask a judge to curtail my First Amendment rights.

I've heard about corporations being persons too but a person claiming to be a corporation is a new one. Has that regal "L'État, c'est moi" ring to it.

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

#62

Post by recursivegirth »

snowwrestler wrote: post #60

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…

This is pretty on the nose considering Matt's latest blog post[1]. I feel for Matt in some regard, and I do think the lawsuit sets a precedent that OSS developers are required to provide software with warranty. However, I say that with not fully understanding the seperation of actions between Automattic the company and Matt in his own personal capacity.

[1] https://ma.tt/2024/12/drupalcon-singapore/

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

#63

Post by ivraatiems »

As much as the US justice system is deeply, deeply flawed, it is one of the few places where very wealthy people ever hit the "find out" stage after fucking around. Some recent examples, apart from this case, certainly include SBF going to prison, Elon Musk being forced to buy Twitter, Alex Jones' enormous civil judgment, and so on.

I'm not saying I have faith in the system, exactly, especially when it tends to only do this at the behest of other very wealthy people demanding it, but it is nice to see.

Matt Mullenweg, if you're reading this (and we know you read HN), feel free to not listen to your attorneys and continue to attack random individuals and companies randomly because you decide you don't like them, or whatever. It will surely end well for you and definitely not with more massive own goals like this one. (And if you are Matt Mullenweg's attorney, and reading this because he decided to follow my bad advice instead of your good advice, well, I'm happy to take a steak dinner in appreciation of the massive bill you'll soon be sending him.)

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

#64

Post by RainyDayTmrw »

lolinder wrote: post #21
speckx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious as to what was the Dropbox comment? Can you please share or link? Thanks!

Congrats, you're one of today's lucky 10000: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 Also worth reading the poster's follow-up years later and the ensuing discussion. Graeme's observation about the significance of the comment is super important: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16661824

And in case anyone needs it, the 10,000 number is referencing this: https://xkcd.com/1053/

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

#65

Post by hooverd »

wlonkly wrote: post #41
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.

Matt has claimed[1] before to be "post-economic", i.e. has enough money that it doesn't matter to him anymore. It's hard not to see this as personal, not financial. [1] https://x.com/sereedmedia/status/1839394786622722432

In terms of cognitive impairment that's like being kicked in the head by a horse every day.

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

#66

Post by duskwuff »

recursivegirth wrote: post #62
snowwrestler wrote: post #60

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…

This is pretty on the nose considering Matt's latest blog post[1]. I feel for Matt in some regard, and I do think the lawsuit sets a precedent that OSS developers are required to provide software with warranty. However, I say that with not fully understanding the seperation of actions between Automattic the company and Matt in his own personal capacity. [1] https://ma.tt/2024/12/drupalcon-singapore/

> I do think the lawsuit sets a precedent that OSS developers are required to provide software with warranty

1) This is a preliminary injunction, not a decision. An injunction which resets a situation to the former status quo pending a decision isn't all that unusual.

2) I don't think the issue here is so much a "warranty" as much as that Automattic (et al) set out to discriminate against WPEngine to obtain a business advantage. If Automattic wanted to shut down the WordPress plugin repository entirely, they'd be within their rights to do so. (It'd be business suicide, of course - but the point is that they could.)

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

#67

Post by M2Ys4U »

lolinder wrote: post #13
tmsh wrote: post #5

[flagged]

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...

It still surprises me that people can't immediately spot that comments like that are slop.

I don't know why it still surprises me, given the frequency at which it happens, but still.

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

#68

Post by sidewndr46 »

duskwuff wrote: post #66
recursivegirth wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty on the nose considering Matt's latest blog post[1]. I feel for Matt in some regard, and I do think the lawsuit sets a precedent that OSS developers are required to provide software with warranty. However, I say that with not fully understanding the seperation of actions between Automattic the company and Matt in his own personal capacity. [1] https://ma.tt/2024/12/drupalcon-singapore/

> I do think the lawsuit sets a precedent that OSS developers are required to provide software with warranty 1) This is a preliminary injunction, not a decision. An injunction which resets a situation to the former status quo pending a decision isn't all that unusual. 2) I don't think the issue here is so much a "warranty" as much as that Automattic (et al) set out to discriminate against WPEngine to obtain a busines…

Given that OSS litigation typically spans decades an injunction might as well be a decision

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

#69

Post by ookblah »

I stopped following it for a bit after the initial drama after Matt had repeated meltdowns and showed his true face in all of this. It was just tiring try to fight all the non-stop gaslighting which was probably part of the strategy. Any leg he had to stand on was betrayed by his tantrums. Good to see some movement.

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

#70

Post by lolinder »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #68
duskwuff wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do think the lawsuit sets a precedent that OSS developers are required to provide software with warranty 1) This is a preliminary injunction, not a decision. An injunction which resets a situation to the former status quo pending a decision isn't all that unusual. 2) I don't think the issue here is so much a "warranty" as much as that Automattic (et al) set out to discriminate against WPEngine to obtain a busines…

Given that OSS litigation typically spans decades an injunction might as well be a decision

For the purpose of preventing action by the defendant, yes. For the purpose of setting binding precedent that affects the outcomes of other lawsuits, not at all.
Post reply on HN