Live data from Hacker News

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

wpengine.com

71–80 of 717 posts

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

#71

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…

[deleted]

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

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the point. They (i know it's you but easier to not personalize it here) do not own all the rights to the software themselves. For the parts they do not own, they have no rights other than what they got through GPLv2. Those rights are conditioned upon them not trying to sublicense/etc the software in a way that conflicts with GPLv2. Which this term sheet purports to do.

The agreement wasn't about their license to the code, it was about their license to the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks. They could agree to not do things allowed under the GPL, like replacing our Stripe attribution, it's their right to. Or not.

"The agreement wasn't about their license to the code,"

Maybe you misread it (or miswrote it i guess)?

it says:

"WP Engine will cease and desist from forking or modifying any of Automattic’s, WooCommerce’s, or its affiliates' software (including, but not limited to plugins and extensions) ..."

It could not more plainly say that they cannot fork or modify software.

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

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He claimed in an interview there's context to the texts that makes it look better, but he hasn't actually released that context, just said that it exists and he wishes WP Engine would [0]. I'm having a hard time imagining context that would make this not extortion, and if there really is context that makes it better I'm unsure why he's not releasing it himself. He's certainly not gone into no-comment-on-legal-matters…

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.

https://automattic.com/2024/10/01/wpe-terms/

"May 2024 May 30: Automattic shares first term sheet with WP Engine via email."

Share the term sheet that you sent to WPEngine in May. The lawsuit suggests that this term sheet is to do with a (now cancelled) partnership between WPEngine and Automattic in regards to WooCommerce. Your blog post suggests that it's a term sheet regarding WPEngine paying the 8% trademark fee for WordPress. You can significantly undermine WPEngine's argument by proving that you presented a WordPress trademark licensing term sheet to them months ago.

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

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He claimed in an interview there's context to the texts that makes it look better, but he hasn't actually released that context, just said that it exists and he wishes WP Engine would [0]. I'm having a hard time imagining context that would make this not extortion, and if there really is context that makes it better I'm unsure why he's not releasing it himself. He's certainly not gone into no-comment-on-legal-matters…

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 with Theo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUJgahHjAKU

He polls his audience and 54% of the thousand people watching thought WP Engine was an official thing, based on visiting their website that day. They have since updated their website a lot, including rewriting customer testimonial quotes without permission:

https://x.com/photomatt/status/1841644271939604628

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

#75
post #26
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…

Hopefully you’re right.

I expect long-term effects for both entrepreneurs and enterprise.

Companies that would’ve started in the ecosystem just got a clear signal that success comes with a tax.

And the risk-management department of every enterprise will use this* as their logical basis for choosing something with a better license.

* Matt unilaterally turning off WP updates for millions of WordPress sites is a major risk signal.

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

#76
Is it just me who took a double take at the very first name?

WPE called the heavy cavalry -- Rachel Kassabian from Quinn Emanuel? oh boy. Remember Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc which found thumbnail versions of copyrighted images for search engine purposes is fair use? That was originally against Google and she was Google's lead counsel.

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

#77

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…

That's not what page 35 says at all. Check out page 36:

> 92. Mullenweg’s premise was false, as WPE’s CEO had never interviewed with or negotiated a job offer with Automattic. To the contrary, back in 2022 Automattic had asked if she would be interested in running wordpress.com, but she politely declined.

(edit: I have no idea who is right, but it's just not correct to read page 35 as saying that)

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

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He claimed in an interview there's context to the texts that makes it look better, but he hasn't actually released that context, just said that it exists and he wishes WP Engine would [0]. I'm having a hard time imagining context that would make this not extortion, and if there really is context that makes it better I'm unsure why he's not releasing it himself. He's certainly not gone into no-comment-on-legal-matters…

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.

Didn’t you give their CEO’s phone number to somebody who interviewed you? That seems like a clear breach of privacy to me.

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

#79

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…

"she wanted to be the Executive Director of WordPress.org for Automattic"

But you own and run and finance WordPress.org personally, as you've revealed and talked about numerous times in the last few weeks. I don't follow, how can Heather apply for a job with Automattic to be the Executive Director of a website you personally own?

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

#80

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.

Post reply on HN