5 ms·

> The lawsuit describes Automattic and Mullenweg’s conduct as an abuse of the open-source internet architecture, alleging that “a single individual (Matt Mullen

> The lawsuit describes Automattic and Mullenweg’s conduct as an abuse of the open-source internet architecture, alleging that “a single individual (Matt Mullenweg) exercises apparent singular control over what they claim to be more than 40% of all websites in the world through his personal website (WordPress.org).” It calls this level of control “an appalling deception” that is “contrary to every conceivable public policy.” That seems like a specious argument to me. There's no deception involved as far as I can tell, and I can't see how public policy has anything to do with this. It sucks for many reasons that Wordpress powers so much of the web, but it's pretty rich for someone whose business is built on Wordpress to claim its success is an existential threat. I will not comment on what I think about a cybersecurity business that is built on a Wordpress site, as it's simply not relevant.

connicpu 2y ago
When you file a lawsuit you initially make every argument you might possibly want to use in your initial filing, knowing some of them will be whittled down. Pretty much every lawsuit ever includes some claims that are a bit of a stretch, because the lawyers need to CYA. If you fail to make the argument you may be precluded from introducing it later, so it's just safer to include it now.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tothrowaway 2y ago
  I think it's more about running up the legal bill of the defendant. It costs virtually nothing to include a spurious claim in a complaint (it can literally be a sentence or two). The defense has the burden of getting the weak claim dismissed with pages and pages of arguments (because they don't want any chance of it slipping through). The bar for a "shotgun" complaint is way too high in the legal system.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- hinkley 2y ago
  I sort of suspect it's also a case of bluffing. You can't know for sure which aspect of a complaint is the one that makes the defendants soil themselves, and you might trigger a settlement or make them behave strangely in ways that give you clues about where exactly it is they're ticklish. I've been told before that some people will settle a case to avoid setting a legal precedent, which might trigger giant class action suits.
FireBeyond 2y ago
> There's no deception involved as far as I can tell Whether it is germane to the case or not, there was plenty of deception: When the rights were transferred to the WPF, Matt didn't disclose that the Foundation was essentially just him, and the two other nominal members were effectively absent. When the rights were transferred, and a big deal was made of this, "It now belongs to the WPF, which ensures that no commercial entity or interest can affect what should be a community project", there was no mention of how, on that same day the WPF silently granted a "irrevocable, non-expiring, exclusive universal commercial licence" to Automattic. Matt repeatedly would refer to wp.org as a community resource and not his, until push came to shove, and "no, actually, it's exclusively mine and has nothing to do with Automattic or the WPF". And several other examples. Apropos of anything else, there has been deception.
- nickff 2y ago
  Matt didn't attest under oath that he was transferring the rights to an arms-length organization; others might have assumed that, but I'm not sure why they would. Isn't the WPF-Automattic relationship more or less the norm with companies that have 'open-source business models'?
  - 1shooner 2y ago
    >Isn't the WPF-Automattic relationship more or less the norm with companies that have 'open-source business models'? No, it's not, and I think that's the crux of most of the controversy. One quick comparison would be Drupal: https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker-problem https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker-problem
    - nickff 2y ago
      I suggested that the WPF-Automattic relationship was “the norm”, and you countered with a post where Drupal describes itself as “unique and groundbreaking within the Open Source community”. While Drupal might be better (or worse), this post doesn’t disagree with my message.
cyral 2y ago
> There's no deception involved as far as I can tell 155 pages of deception here: https://wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/51-2.pdf https://wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/51-2.pdf Page 32 "Defendants Conceal the Truth Regarding the WordPress Directory" and page 73 "Wrongfully Expropriate WPE’s Most Popular Plugin" are particularly related. (The part where Matt decides to take over WP Engine's popular plugin and rename it, taking all their customers and reviews is particularly egregious)
- karaterobot 2y ago
  Deception with respect to him having full control of Wordpress, which is what the quote was about.
  - edanm 2y ago
    I'm not an expert or part of the community and haven't been following too closely. But I vaguely remember there was a story where he said he transferred control of some aspect of WP to a non-profit organization not controlled by him, with a press release and everything, but then later that day control was transferred back to him without telling anyone. In any case, I believe it's pretty clear that most people who rely on WordPress had no idea that it is almost singularly controlled by him. Whether this was done via deception or not is indeed a good question.
neverchangeboi 2y ago
I love how the top comment on every single HN post is some contrarian "nuh uh!" take from someone who is lightyears away from being an expert in that thing.

connicpu 2y ago

When you file a lawsuit you initially make every argument you might possibly want to use in your initial filing, knowing some of them will be whittled down. Pretty much every lawsuit ever includes some claims that are a bit of a stretch, because the lawyers need to CYA. If you fail to make the argument you may be precluded from introducing it later, so it's just safer to include it now.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tothrowaway 2y ago
I think it's more about running up the legal bill of the defendant. It costs virtually nothing to include a spurious claim in a complaint (it can literally be a sentence or two). The defense has the burden of getting the weak claim dismissed with pages and pages of arguments (because they don't want any chance of it slipping through). The bar for a "shotgun" complaint is way too high in the legal system.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
hinkley 2y ago
I sort of suspect it's also a case of bluffing. You can't know for sure which aspect of a complaint is the one that makes the defendants soil themselves, and you might trigger a settlement or make them behave strangely in ways that give you clues about where exactly it is they're ticklish. I've been told before that some people will settle a case to avoid setting a legal precedent, which might trigger giant class action suits.

FireBeyond 2y ago

> There's no deception involved as far as I can tell Whether it is germane to the case or not, there was plenty of deception: When the rights were transferred to the WPF, Matt didn't disclose that the Foundation was essentially just him, and the two other nominal members were effectively absent. When the rights were transferred, and a big deal was made of this, "It now belongs to the WPF, which ensures that no commercial entity or interest can affect what should be a community project", there was no mention of how, on that same day the WPF silently granted a "irrevocable, non-expiring, exclusive universal commercial licence" to Automattic. Matt repeatedly would refer to wp.org as a community resource and not his, until push came to shove, and "no, actually, it's exclusively mine and has nothing to do with Automattic or the WPF". And several other examples. Apropos of anything else, there has been deception.

nickff 2y ago
Matt didn't attest under oath that he was transferring the rights to an arms-length organization; others might have assumed that, but I'm not sure why they would. Isn't the WPF-Automattic relationship more or less the norm with companies that have 'open-source business models'?
- 1shooner 2y ago
  >Isn't the WPF-Automattic relationship more or less the norm with companies that have 'open-source business models'? No, it's not, and I think that's the crux of most of the controversy. One quick comparison would be Drupal: https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker-problem https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker-problem
  - nickff 2y ago
    I suggested that the WPF-Automattic relationship was “the norm”, and you countered with a post where Drupal describes itself as “unique and groundbreaking within the Open Source community”. While Drupal might be better (or worse), this post doesn’t disagree with my message.

cyral 2y ago

> There's no deception involved as far as I can tell 155 pages of deception here: https://wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/51-2.pdf https://wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/51-2.pdf Page 32 "Defendants Conceal the Truth Regarding the WordPress Directory" and page 73 "Wrongfully Expropriate WPE’s Most Popular Plugin" are particularly related. (The part where Matt decides to take over WP Engine's popular plugin and rename it, taking all their customers and reviews is particularly egregious)

karaterobot 2y ago
Deception with respect to him having full control of Wordpress, which is what the quote was about.
- edanm 2y ago
  I'm not an expert or part of the community and haven't been following too closely. But I vaguely remember there was a story where he said he transferred control of some aspect of WP to a non-profit organization not controlled by him, with a press release and everything, but then later that day control was transferred back to him without telling anyone. In any case, I believe it's pretty clear that most people who rely on WordPress had no idea that it is almost singularly controlled by him. Whether this was done via deception or not is indeed a good question.

neverchangeboi 2y ago

I love how the top comment on every single HN post is some contrarian "nuh uh!" take from someone who is lightyears away from being an expert in that thing.